[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 166 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H5139-H5159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT OF 2021

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 667, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 3755) to protect a person's ability to determine 
whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care 
provider's ability to provide abortion services, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 677, the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 117-125 shall be considered 
as adopted.
  The bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3755

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Health Protection 
     Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Abortion services are essential to health care and 
     access to those services is central to people's ability to 
     participate equally in the economic and social life of the 
     United States. Abortion access allows people who are pregnant 
     to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, their 
     families, and their lives.
       (2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized 
     the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before 
     fetal viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal 
     viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical 
     judgment of the treating health care professional, for the 
     preservation of the life or health of the person who is 
     pregnant.
       (3) Nonetheless, access to abortion services has been 
     obstructed across the United States in various ways, 
     including blockades of health care facilities and associated 
     violence, prohibitions of, and restrictions on, insurance 
     coverage; parental involvement laws (notification and 
     consent); restrictions that shame and stigmatize people 
     seeking abortion services; and medically unnecessary 
     regulations that neither confer any health benefit nor 
     further the safety of abortion services, but which harm 
     people by delaying, complicating access to, and reducing the 
     availability of, abortion services.
       (4) Reproductive justice requires every individual to have 
     the right to make their own decisions about having children 
     regardless of their circumstances and without interference 
     and discrimination. Reproductive Justice is a human right 
     that can and will be achieved when all people, regardless of 
     actual or perceived race, color, national origin, immigration 
     status, sex (including gender identity, sex stereotyping, or 
     sexual orientation), age, or disability status have the 
     economic, social, and political power and resources to define 
     and make decisions about their bodies, health, sexuality, 
     families, and communities in all areas of their lives, with 
     dignity and self-determination.
       (5) Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on 
     reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate 
     systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white 
     supremacy, and anti-Black racism. This violent legacy has 
     manifested in policies including enslavement, rape, and 
     experimentation on Black women; forced sterilizations; 
     medical experimentation on low-income women's reproductive 
     systems; and the forcible removal of Indigenous children. 
     Access to equitable reproductive health care, including 
     abortion services, has always been deficient in the United 
     States for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color 
     (BIPOC) and their families.
       (6) The legacy of restrictions on reproductive health, 
     rights, and justice is not a dated vestige of a dark history. 
     Presently, the harms of abortion-specific restrictions fall 
     especially heavily on people with low incomes, BIPOC, 
     immigrants, young people, people with disabilities, and those 
     living in rural and other medically underserved areas. 
     Abortion-specific restrictions are even more compounded by 
     the ongoing criminalization of people who are pregnant, 
     including those who are incarcerated, living with HIV, or 
     with substance-use disorders. These communities already 
     experience health disparities due to social, political, and 
     environmental inequities, and restrictions on abortion 
     services exacerbate these harms. Removing medically 
     unjustified restrictions on abortion services would 
     constitute one important step on the path toward realizing 
     Reproductive Justice by ensuring that the full range of 
     reproductive health care is accessible to all who need it.
       (7) Abortion-specific restrictions are a tool of gender 
     oppression, as they target health care services that are used 
     primarily by women. These paternalistic restrictions rely on 
     and reinforce harmful stereotypes about gender roles, women's 
     decision-making, and women's need for protection instead of 
     support, undermining their ability to control their own lives 
     and well-being. These restrictions harm the basic autonomy, 
     dignity, and equality of women, and their ability to 
     participate in the social and economic life of the Nation.
       (8) The terms ``woman'' and ``women'' are used in this bill 
     to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted 
     and affected by restrictions on abortion services, and to 
     address squarely the targeted restrictions on abortion, which 
     are rooted in misogyny. However, access to abortion services 
     is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming 
     pregnant. This Act is intended to protect all people with the 
     capacity for pregnancy--cisgender women, transgender men, 
     non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different 
     gender, and others--who are unjustly harmed by restrictions 
     on abortion services.
       (9) Since 2011, States and local governments have passed 
     nearly 500 restrictions singling out

[[Page H5140]]

     health care providers who offer abortion services, 
     interfering with their ability to provide those services and 
     the patients' ability to obtain those services.
       (10) Many State and local governments have imposed 
     restrictions on the provision of abortion services that are 
     neither evidence-based nor generally applicable to the 
     medical profession or to other medically comparable 
     outpatient gynecological procedures, such as endometrial 
     ablations, dilation and curettage for reasons other than 
     abortion, hysteroscopies, loop electrosurgical excision 
     procedures, or other analogous non-gynecological procedures 
     performed in similar outpatient settings including vasectomy, 
     sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy.
       (11) Abortion is essential health care and one of the 
     safest medical procedures in the United States. An 
     independent, comprehensive review of the state of science on 
     the safety and quality of abortion services, published by the 
     National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 
     2018, found that abortion in the United States is safe and 
     effective and that the biggest threats to the quality of 
     abortion services in the United States are State regulations 
     that create barriers to care. These abortion-specific 
     restrictions conflict with medical standards and are not 
     supported by the recommendations and guidelines issued by 
     leading reproductive health care professional organizations 
     including the American College of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists, the Society of Family Planning, the National 
     Abortion Federation, the World Health Organization, and 
     others.
       (12) Many abortion-specific restrictions do not confer any 
     health or safety benefits on the patient. Instead, these 
     restrictions have the purpose and effect of unduly burdening 
     people's personal and private medical decisions to end their 
     pregnancies by making access to abortion services more 
     difficult, invasive, and costly, often forcing people to 
     travel significant distances and make multiple unnecessary 
     visits to the provider, and in some cases, foreclosing the 
     option altogether. For example, a 2018 report from the 
     University of California San Francisco's Advancing New 
     Standards in Reproductive Health research group found that in 
     27 cities across the United States, people have to travel 
     more than 100 miles in any direction to reach an abortion 
     provider.
       (13) An overwhelming majority of abortions in the United 
     States are provided in clinics, not hospitals, but the large 
     majority of counties throughout the United States have no 
     clinics that provide abortion.
       (14) These restrictions additionally harm people's health 
     by reducing access not only to abortion services but also to 
     other essential health care services offered by many of the 
     providers targeted by the restrictions, including--
       (A) screenings and preventive services, including 
     contraceptive services;
       (B) testing and treatment for sexually transmitted 
     infections;
       (C) LGBTQ health services; and
       (D) referrals for primary care, intimate partner violence 
     prevention, prenatal care and adoption services.
       (15) The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions 
     has been to severely limit the availability of abortion 
     services in some areas, creating a patchwork system where 
     access to abortion services is more available in some States 
     than in others. A 2019 report from the Government 
     Accountability Office examining State Medicaid compliance 
     with abortion coverage requirements analyzed seven key 
     challenges (identified both by health care providers and 
     research literature) and their effect on abortion access, and 
     found that access to abortion services varied across the 
     States and even within a State.
       (16) International human rights law recognizes that access 
     to abortion is intrinsically linked to the rights to life, 
     health, equality and non-discrimination, privacy, and freedom 
     from ill-treatment. United Nations (UN) human rights treaty 
     monitoring bodies have found that legal abortion services, 
     like other reproductive health care services, must be 
     available, accessible, affordable, acceptable, and of good 
     quality. UN human rights treaty bodies have likewise 
     condemned medically unnecessary barriers to abortion 
     services, including mandatory waiting periods, biased 
     counseling requirements, and third-party authorization 
     requirements.
       (17) Core human rights treaties ratified by the United 
     States protect access to abortion. For example, in 2018, the 
     UN Human Rights Committee, which oversees implementation of 
     the ICCPR, made clear that the right to life, enshrined in 
     Article 6 of the ICCPR, at a minimum requires governments to 
     provide safe, legal, and effective access to abortion where a 
     person's life and health is at risk, or when carrying a 
     pregnancy to term would cause substantial pain or suffering. 
     The Committee stated that governments must not impose 
     restrictions on abortion which subject women and girls to 
     physical or mental pain or suffering, discriminate against 
     them, arbitrarily interfere with their privacy, or place them 
     at risk of undertaking unsafe abortions. Furthermore, the 
     Committee stated that governments should remove existing 
     barriers that deny effective access to safe and legal 
     abortion, refrain from introducing new barriers to abortion, 
     and prevent the stigmatization of those seeking abortion.
       (18) UN independent human rights experts have expressed 
     particular concern about barriers to abortion services in the 
     United States. For example, at the conclusion of his 2017 
     visit to the United States, the UN Special Rapporteur on 
     extreme poverty and human rights noted concern that low-
     income women face legal and practical obstacles to exercising 
     their constitutional right to access abortion services, 
     trapping many women in cycles of poverty. Similarly, in May 
     2020, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women 
     and girls, along with other human rights experts, expressed 
     concern that some states had manipulated the COVID-19 crisis 
     to restrict access to abortion, which the experts recognized 
     as ``the latest example illustrating a pattern of 
     restrictions and retrogressions in access to legal abortion 
     care across the country'' and reminded U.S. authorities that 
     abortion care constitutes essential health care that must 
     remain available during and after the pandemic. They noted 
     that barriers to abortion access exacerbate systemic 
     inequalities and cause particular harm to marginalized 
     communities, including low-income people, people of color, 
     immigrants, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ people.
       (19) Abortion-specific restrictions affect the cost and 
     availability of abortion services, and the settings in which 
     abortion services are delivered. People travel across State 
     lines and otherwise engage in interstate commerce to access 
     this essential medical care, and more would be forced to do 
     so absent this Act. Likewise, health care providers travel 
     across State lines and otherwise engage in interstate 
     commerce in order to provide abortion services to patients, 
     and more would be forced to do so absent this Act.
       (20) Health care providers engage in a form of economic and 
     commercial activity when they provide abortion services, and 
     there is an interstate market for abortion services.
       (21) Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate 
     commerce in numerous ways. For example, to provide abortion 
     services, health care providers engage in interstate commerce 
     to purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary 
     goods and services. To provide and assist others in providing 
     abortion services, health care providers engage in interstate 
     commerce to obtain and provide training. To provide abortion 
     services, health care providers employ and obtain commercial 
     services from doctors, nurses, and other personnel who engage 
     in interstate commerce and travel across State lines.
       (22) It is difficult and time and resource-consuming for 
     clinics to challenge State laws that burden or impede 
     abortion services. Litigation that blocks one abortion 
     restriction may not prevent a State from adopting other 
     similarly burdensome abortion restrictions or using different 
     methods to burden or impede abortion services. There is a 
     history and pattern of States passing successive and 
     different laws that unduly burden abortion services.
       (23) When a health care provider ceases providing abortion 
     services as a result of burdensome and medically unnecessary 
     regulations, it is often difficult or impossible for that 
     health care provider to recommence providing those abortion 
     services, and difficult or impossible for other health care 
     providers to provide abortion services that restore or 
     replace the ceased abortion services.
       (24) Health care providers are subject to license laws in 
     various jurisdictions, which are not affected by this Act 
     except as provided in this Act.
       (25) Congress has the authority to enact this Act to 
     protect abortion services pursuant to--
       (A) its powers under the commerce clause of section 8 of 
     article I of the Constitution of the United States;
       (B) its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment 
     to the Constitution of the United States to enforce the 
     provisions of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
       (C) its powers under the necessary and proper clause of 
     section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United 
     States.
       (26) Congress has used its authority in the past to protect 
     access to abortion services and health care providers' 
     ability to provide abortion services. In the early 1990s, 
     protests and blockades at health care facilities where 
     abortion services were provided, and associated violence, 
     increased dramatically and reached crisis level, requiring 
     Congressional action. Congress passed the Freedom of Access 
     to Clinic Entrances Act (Public Law 103-259; 108 Stat. 694) 
     to address that situation and protect physical access to 
     abortion services.
       (27) Congressional action is necessary to put an end to 
     harmful restrictions, to federally protect access to abortion 
     services for everyone regardless of where they live, and to 
     protect the ability of health care providers to provide these 
     services in a safe and accessible manner.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act--
       (1) to permit health care providers to provide abortion 
     services without limitations or requirements that single out 
     the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are 
     more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically 
     comparable procedures, do not significantly advance 
     reproductive health or the safety of abortion services, and 
     make abortion services more difficult to access;
       (2) to promote access to abortion services and women's 
     ability to participate equally in the economic and social 
     life of the United States; and
       (3) to invoke Congressional authority, including the powers 
     of Congress under the commerce clause of section 8 of article 
     I of the Constitution of the United States, its powers under 
     section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States to enforce the provisions of section 1 of 
     the Fourteenth Amendment, and its powers under the necessary 
     and proper clause of section 8 of article I of the 
     Constitution of the United States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Abortion services.--The term ``abortion services'' 
     means an abortion and any medical or non-medical services 
     related to and provided in conjunction with an abortion 
     (whether or not provided at the same time or on the same day 
     as the abortion).
       (2) Government.--The term ``government'' includes each 
     branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official of 
     the United States or a State.

[[Page H5141]]

       (3) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means any entity or individual (including any 
     physician, certified nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, and 
     physician assistant) that--
       (A) is engaged or seeks to engage in the delivery of health 
     care services, including abortion services, and
       (B) if required by law or regulation to be licensed or 
     certified to engage in the delivery of such services--
       (i) is so licensed or certified, or
       (ii) would be so licensed or certified but for their past, 
     present, or potential provision of abortion services 
     permitted by section 4.
       (4) Medically comparable procedure.--The term ``medically 
     comparable procedures'' means medical procedures that are 
     similar in terms of health and safety risks to the patient, 
     complexity, or the clinical setting that is indicated.
       (5) Pregnancy.--The term ``pregnancy'' refers to the period 
     of the human reproductive process beginning with the 
     implantation of a fertilized egg.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory 
     and possession of the United States, and any subdivision of 
     any of the foregoing, including any unit of local government, 
     such as a county, city, town, village, or other general 
     purpose political subdivision of a State.
       (7) Viability.--The term ``viability'' means the point in a 
     pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the 
     treating health care provider, based on the particular facts 
     of the case before the health care provider, there is a 
     reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the 
     uterus with or without artificial support.

     SEC. 4. PERMITTED SERVICES.

       (a) General Rule.--A health care provider has a statutory 
     right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may 
     provide abortion services, and that provider's patient has a 
     corresponding right to receive such services, without any of 
     the following limitations or requirements:
       (1) A requirement that a health care provider perform 
     specific tests or medical procedures in connection with the 
     provision of abortion services, unless generally required for 
     the provision of medically comparable procedures.
       (2) A requirement that the same health care provider who 
     provides abortion services also perform specified tests, 
     services, or procedures prior to or subsequent to the 
     abortion.
       (3) A requirement that a health care provider offer or 
     provide the patient seeking abortion services medically 
     inaccurate information in advance of or during abortion 
     services.
       (4) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to 
     prescribe or dispense drugs based on current evidence-based 
     regimens or the provider's good-faith medical judgment, other 
     than a limitation generally applicable to the medical 
     profession.
       (5) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to 
     provide abortion services via telemedicine, other than a 
     limitation generally applicable to the provision of medical 
     services via telemedicine.
       (6) A requirement or limitation concerning the physical 
     plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements 
     of facilities where abortion services are provided, or the 
     credentials or hospital privileges or status of personnel at 
     such facilities, that is not imposed on facilities or the 
     personnel of facilities where medically comparable procedures 
     are performed.
       (7) A requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a 
     patient make one or more medically unnecessary in-person 
     visits to the provider of abortion services or to any 
     individual or entity that does not provide abortion services.
       (8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in 
     time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or 
     restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
       (9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, 
     in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health 
     care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a 
     risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.
       (10) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to 
     provide immediate abortion services when that health care 
     provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment 
     of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the 
     patient's health.
       (11) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion services 
     at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability 
     disclose the patient's reason or reasons for seeking abortion 
     services, or a limitation on the provision or obtaining of 
     abortion services at any point or points in time prior to 
     fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential 
     reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion 
     services, regardless of whether the limitation is based on a 
     health care provider's degree of actual or constructive 
     knowledge of such reason or reasons.
       (b) Other Limitations or Requirements.--The statutory right 
     specified in subsection (a) shall not be limited or otherwise 
     infringed through, in addition to the limitations and 
     requirements specified in paragraphs (1) through (11) of 
     subsection (a), any limitation or requirement that--
       (1) is the same as or similar to one or more of the 
     limitations or requirements described in subsection (a); or
       (2) both--
       (A) expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented 
     singles out the provision of abortion services, health care 
     providers who provide abortion services, or facilities in 
     which abortion services are provided; and
       (B) impedes access to abortion services.
       (c) Factors For Consideration.--Factors a court may 
     consider in determining whether a limitation or requirement 
     impedes access to abortion services for purposes of 
     subsection (b)(2)(B) include the following:
       (1) Whether the limitation or requirement, in a provider's 
     good-faith medical judgment, interferes with a health care 
     provider's ability to provide care and render services, or 
     poses a risk to the patient's health or safety.
       (2) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
     likely to delay or deter some patients in accessing abortion 
     services.
       (3) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
     likely to directly or indirectly increase the cost of 
     providing abortion services or the cost for obtaining 
     abortion services (including costs associated with travel, 
     childcare, or time off work).
       (4) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
     likely to have the effect of necessitating a trip to the 
     offices of a health care provider that would not otherwise be 
     required.
       (5) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
     likely to result in a decrease in the availability of 
     abortion services in a given State or geographic region.
       (6) Whether the limitation or requirement imposes penalties 
     that are not imposed on other health care providers for 
     comparable conduct or failure to act, or that are more severe 
     than penalties imposed on other health care providers for 
     comparable conduct or failure to act.
       (7) The cumulative impact of the limitation or requirement 
     combined with other new or existing limitations or 
     requirements.
       (d) Exception.--To defend against a claim that a limitation 
     or requirement violates a health care provider's or patient's 
     statutory rights under subsection (b), a party must 
     establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that--
       (1) the limitation or requirement significantly advances 
     the safety of abortion services or the health of patients; 
     and
       (2) the safety of abortion services or the health of 
     patients cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative 
     measure or action.

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY AND PREEMPTION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Except as stated under subsection (b), this Act 
     supersedes and applies to the law of the Federal Government 
     and each State government, and the implementation of such 
     law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether 
     adopted before or after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and neither the Federal Government nor any State government 
     shall administer, implement, or enforce any law, rule, 
     regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and 
     effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including 
     the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000bb et seq.).
       (2) Federal statutory law adopted after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act is subject to this Act unless such law 
     explicitly excludes such application by reference to this 
     Act.
       (b) Limitations.--The provisions of this Act shall not 
     supersede or apply to--
       (1) laws regulating physical access to clinic entrances;
       (2) insurance or medical assistance coverage of abortion 
     services;
       (3) the procedure described in section 1531(b)(1) of title 
     18, United States Code; or
       (4) generally applicable State contract law.
       (c) Defense.--In any cause of action against an individual 
     or entity who is subject to a limitation or requirement that 
     violates this Act, in addition to the remedies specified in 
     section 8, this Act shall also apply to, and may be raised as 
     a defense by, such an individual or entity.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect immediately upon the date of 
     enactment of this Act. This Act shall apply to all 
     restrictions on the provision of, or access to, abortion 
     services whether the restrictions are enacted or imposed 
     prior to or after the date of enactment of this Act, except 
     as otherwise provided in this Act.

     SEC. 7. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--In interpreting the provisions of this 
     Act, a court shall liberally construe such provisions to 
     effectuate the purposes of the Act.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to authorize any government to interfere with a 
     person's ability to terminate a pregnancy, to diminish or in 
     any way negatively affect a person's constitutional right to 
     terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for 
     violations of the constitutional right to terminate a 
     pregnancy.
       (c) Other Individuals Considered as Government Officials.--
     Any person who, by operation of a provision of Federal or 
     State law, is permitted to implement or enforce a limitation 
     or requirement that violates section 4 of this Act shall be 
     considered a government official for purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Attorney General.--The Attorney General may commence a 
     civil action on behalf of the United States against any State 
     that violates, or against any government official (including 
     a person described in section 7(c)) that implements or 
     enforces a limitation or requirement that violates, section 
     4. The court shall hold unlawful and set aside the limitation 
     or requirement if it is in violation of this Act.
       (b) Private Right of Action.--
       (1) In general.--Any individual or entity, including any 
     health care provider or patient, adversely affected by an 
     alleged violation of this Act, may commence a civil action 
     against any State that violates, or against any government 
     official (including a person described in section 7(c)) that 
     implements or enforces a limitation or requirement that 
     violates, section 4. The court shall hold unlawful and set 
     aside the limitation or requirement if it is in violation of 
     this Act.
       (2) Health care provider.--A health care provider may 
     commence an action for relief on

[[Page H5142]]

     its own behalf, on behalf of the provider's staff, and on 
     behalf of the provider's patients who are or may be adversely 
     affected by an alleged violation of this Act.
       (c) Equitable Relief.--In any action under this section, 
     the court may award appropriate equitable relief, including 
     temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief.
       (d) Costs.--In any action under this section, the court 
     shall award costs of litigation, as well as reasonable 
     attorney's fees, to any prevailing plaintiff. A plaintiff 
     shall not be liable to a defendant for costs or attorney's 
     fees in any non-frivolous action under this section.
       (e) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States 
     shall have jurisdiction over proceedings under this Act and 
     shall exercise the same without regard to whether the party 
     aggrieved shall have exhausted any administrative or other 
     remedies that may be provided for by law.
       (f) Abrogation of State Immunity.--Neither a State that 
     enforces or maintains, nor a government official (including a 
     person described in section 7(c)) who is permitted to 
     implement or enforce any limitation or requirement that 
     violates section 4 shall be immune under the Tenth Amendment 
     to the Constitution of the United States, the Eleventh 
     Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any 
     other source of law, from an action in a Federal or State 
     court of competent jurisdiction challenging that limitation 
     or requirement.

     SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or the application of such 
     provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, 
     is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or 
     the application of such provision to all other persons, 
     entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be 
     affected thereby.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their 
respective designees.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3755.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3755, the 
Women's Health Protection Act of 2021. The need to pass this 
legislation grows more urgent every day as anti-abortion extremists 
continue to pass harmful State laws that are intended to restrict 
access to reproductive healthcare and turn back the clock on the 
constitutionally protected right to abortion.
  While the courts seem willing to chip away at decades of clear 
precedent guaranteeing the right for women to make their own healthcare 
decisions, it is vital we act to protect this right and enshrine it in 
Federal law.
  This legislation simply ensures that no matter where they live, 
patients can access abortion services, and healthcare providers can 
provide this care without medically unnecessary and burdensome 
restrictions. And now is the time to pass this legislation and ensure 
women's healthcare rights are enshrined in Federal law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation today, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the ranking member on the Health 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democrats' 
abortion on demand until birth bill.
  The other night we were having a hearing in Energy and Commerce. It 
was on a similar--a different bill, but a similar topic. And a lot of 
the rhetoric coming from the other side and, specifically, I remember 
is that the baby is nothing more than a uterus or an ovary. It was just 
kind of all of the same thing.
  And it reminded me back when I was--when we had our first child, our 
now 28-year old, mother of our grandchild, when she was 12 weeks we had 
to have a sonogram because we thought there might be some issues. And 
she was about the size of the end of my thumb. And when we got the 28-
year-old technology, she was sucking her thumb. The lady said, oh, 
look, he or she is sucking her thumb. Now we know it was a her; we 
didn't know at the time.
  It is a distinct individual. Now, I will accede that it 100 percent 
depends on its mother for life, but it is distinct and separate from 
its mom. Her heart was beating.
  Moving forward, let me just talk about how extreme this bill is. It 
allows abortion at any time if the unborn child was diagnosed with 
anything such as Down syndrome. It allows abortion at any time solely 
based on the baby's biological sex. It allows abortion to occur at any 
time point, including when a baby can feel pain, as well as when a 
heartbeat can be detected.
  So this is an extreme bill before us today. And before we vote on 
this, I would like to let my colleagues know that a majority of 
Americans do not support abortions with no limits. In fact, 80 percent 
of Americans say abortion should be illegal in the third trimester.
  This does not prevent States from making abortions legal in the third 
trimester.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It is a separate 
and distinct life.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), the chairwoman of our Health Subcommittee.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Women's Health Protection Act.
  Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of every 
woman to make decisions about her own life, her own body, her own 
future.
  Now that right is under horrible threat by a shameful and 
unconstitutional law in Texas that bans abortion after 6 weeks of 
pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. That is a law 
in defiance of the Federal law. It turns private citizens into snitches 
to turn women in. That is reminiscent of the Third Reich. And if that 
sounds staggering, it is because it is.
  Every day, women in our country face deeply personal decisions of 
whether to continue their pregnancies. They should be able to make 
their own decisions, free from politicians' interference.
  The Women's Health Protection Act is exactly that. It protects women. 
It ensures that every woman has equal access to comprehensive 
reproductive healthcare. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  In America, the condition of a child's birth doesn't determine the 
outcome of their life, for every single person, born or unborn, should 
have the opportunity to live the American Dream.
  But this abortion on demand bill would destroy our country's future. 
Today, we are embarking on the biggest step backward in our Nation's 
history. This vote could be the most consequential vote that any of us 
take.
  Today, the science is even more clear than it was in 1973, that a 
child in the womb is a living person. And yet, my colleagues on the 
other side remain obsessed with killing unborn babies in the name of 
female empowerment.

  Many supporters of this bill, like me, call us pro-life Americans 
extreme. I have heard it already this morning.
  But I have seen extreme. I have witnessed the cruelty of abortion and 
it is ugly.
  In South Bend, Indiana, Dr. Ulrich Klopfer provided abortions for 
decades. When he died in 2019, his family found the medically preserved 
remains of 2,411 children hidden in his garage. That is 2,411 human 
babies preserved in formaldehyde in jars in his garage. It was national 
news for a week. This abortionist left a legacy of death and 
destruction. That is what extreme looks like.
  Abortions sold as healthcare is a sickening violation of human 
dignity that Americans should not and cannot tolerate.
  So I will ask this question: Will we allow this to happen again?
  As a nation, we have an obligation to future generations to reject 
abortion on demand and to fight for life. I implore my colleagues here 
today, join me in opposing this bill and standing for life.

[[Page H5143]]

  The truth is on our side, and, in the end, the truth is going to 
prevail.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the chairwoman of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Everyone everywhere 
should have the freedom to make their own personal healthcare decisions 
without interference from politicians.
  When the Supreme Court allowed the most restrictive abortion law in 
the nation to go into effect in Texas, they made it clear that they 
cannot be trusted to protect the constitutional right to an abortion. 
That is why the Congress must act as other States are moving to follow 
suit.
  That is why Democrats are fighting to protect a woman's right to 
choose. That is why we have removed the restrictive Hyde language from 
all of our appropriations bills.
  It is time to trust women, to respect their decisions. Healthcare is 
not political, not negotiable.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), ranking member of a 
subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
the abortion on demand until birth act.
  I have worked in Congress to promote a culture of life and remain 
supportive of measures that respect the sanctity of human life by 
encouraging alternatives to abortion, including counseling and 
pregnancy centers for women.
  By contrast, the abortion on demand until birth act attempts to 
override past and future pro-life laws at the Federal and State levels. 
This will allow abortions based on Down syndrome diagnosis, sex of the 
baby, and even dismemberment abortions. Simply put, this bill's goal is 
to promote abortion anywhere, anytime, from conception to birth.
  Madam Speaker, our Nation should be investing in women's healthcare 
and the healthcare of unborn babies. This bill does the opposite. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair for 
yielding and for his leadership in advancing this incredibly important 
issue.
  America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but we 
cannot truly be a free country unless women have the freedom to make 
their own healthcare decisions. The radical right's effort to take away 
that freedom, all across country, is unacceptable, unthinkable, 
untenable, unconscionable, and un-American. We are going to make it 
unlawful.
  We are going to pass the Women's Healthcare Protection Act, and we 
are going to protect and respect a woman's freedom to make her own 
healthcare decisions.

                              {time}  0930

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who has fought for life so 
long.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, as a woman, as a mom, as a former 
teacher who worked with hundreds of teenagers and who loves each and 
every one of them, I rise in opposition to this bill, which isn't about 
freedom for women; it is about death for babies.
  We are faced with multiple questions today.
  Is it okay to coerce a woman to have an abortion?
  Is it okay to send a 13-year-old girl home to perform a do-it-
yourself abortion on herself without medical supervision? Is it okay 
for her to have this abortion without her parents even knowing?
  Is it okay to take the life of a baby just because it has Down 
syndrome?
  Is it okay to take the life of a baby just because it is a girl?
  Is it okay? It is not okay. The answer to all of these things should 
be no.
  Yet, this bill eliminates protections for women and girls facing 
coercion, neglect, and discrimination. It endangers their health, and 
it ends the life of a living human being with a plan and a purpose from 
God and who deserves to live.
  We are here to defend the basic right to life, and I plead with my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
thank him for his leadership on this very important issue and to all of 
our colleagues in this pro-choice House Democratic Caucus. This is the 
first time, Madam Speaker, that we have had a pro-choice Democratic 
Caucus with a Democratic President, and the timing could not be better 
because of the assault that has been made on the constitutional rights 
of women in our country.
  Madam Speaker, coming to the floor today, I recall an experience from 
when I was in high school. Now, that was a long time ago. We were in a 
debate, a contemporaneous debate situation, and you were to pick 
something out of a hat and then speak to it.
  Well, a person, a friend of mine, drew the question, and it said--
now, again, ancient history, a long time ago. It said: ``Do women 
think?'' That was the question that she had to speak to: ``Do women 
think?'' It seemed horrible at the time. It seems out of the question, 
beyond horrible now.
  Today, years later, it seems that there are some who want to debate 
that question because the disrespect for women and their ability to 
determine the size and timing of their family, and so many other 
things, is disrespected in the action taken by the State of Texas.
  But even worse than that--because what do you expect? Worse than that 
was the decision of this Court, the Supreme Court of the United States, 
to embrace the horror of it all, in terms of the legislation and what 
it did to remove the sanctity of private decisionmaking from women, but 
also that it gave an imprimatur to vigilantism, something so 
outrageous, so unpatriotic, so un-American, madly embraced by this 
shameful Court, with total disregard for stare decisis, the precedent 
that the Court had already established, that Roe v. Wade was 
constitutional.
  Today, I want to thank Judy Chu for her leadership, Congress in, 
Congress out, but now we have the majority and a President and a 
Democratic Senate. I thank her for her leadership in introducing this 
again and again.
  In advocating the Women's Health Protection Act, we are standing on 
the side of women to defend their freedoms and to uphold this truth: 
Every woman everywhere has the constitutional right to basic 
reproductive healthcare, no matter what State you live in. 
Constitutional rights are not meted out geographically. They are for 
the country.
  Again, I salute Congresswoman Chu, chair of the Contraception and 
Family Planning Task Force of the Pro-Choice Caucus, who has been 
introducing this bill over and over again.
  Again, we have produced legislation that can become law. For years, 
radical restrictions on women's reproductive health freedoms have been 
pushed across the Nation, with 2021 on track to be the worst 
legislative year for women's health rights.
  I come to this as a Catholic and a mother of five, in 6 years and 1 
week, and with the joy that all of that meant to us but with the 
recognition that it was my husband and I--it was our decision. And we 
should not, in this body or in that Court, be making decisions for the 
women in America.
  As of July, 90 reproductive health restrictions have been enacted, 
more than in any year since Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973.
  But here is the thing. It is important for the women of America to 
know that, as this impedes their right to make decisions, the same 
forces at work don't want in vitro fertilization--actually, even the 
State of Mississippi rejected that, their prohibition on that--and 
stand in the way of reproductive health and guidance, in terms of 
family planning, birth control, and the rest. It is important for 
American women to know what we are up against when it comes to 
intrusion into the privacy of a family's life.
  You would think that since they are so averse to governance in any 
way, they wouldn't be so bullish about going

[[Page H5144]]

into people's private lives in the way that they do.
  What the Supreme Court did was cowardly, a cowardly, dark-of-night 
decision to allow that bill to go into effect. How could it be? Because 
it was a decision. The Court made a decision.
  But the Republicans in Congress and the then-President made a 
decision, in a way that was almost shameful, to make sure that so many 
Justices on the Court--I say shameful because the last one, which they 
railroaded through, while opposing the review of a Democratic 
President's suggestion a few years earlier, saying they didn't have 
enough time, a year. They had enough time, a month.

  I just want to say this about Roe. In Roe, the Supreme Court held 
that personal liberty is protected by the Constitution, which the Court 
had recognized as extending to decisions relating to marriage, 
procreation, contraception, family relations, and childrearing, and it 
is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to 
terminate her pregnancy.
  S.B. 8 is an extreme ban on abortion for most women before they even 
know. Sometimes I wonder if they don't need a lesson in the birds and 
the bees, but, again, I just want to go to this point. S.B. 8 unleashes 
one of the most disturbing, unprecedented, far-reaching assaults on 
healthcare providers and on anyone who helps a woman in any way access 
an abortion by creating a vigilante bounty system that will have a 
chilling effect on the provisions of any healthcare services.
  What is next? What is next with these vigilantes and their bounty 
system?
  I associate myself with my colleagues' remarks on all of this because 
they bring so much knowledge of the Constitution, knowledge of the 
history since 1973 and even studying it before. Diana DeGette, one of 
the co-chairs of the caucus, fought this issue in the courts and won, 
fought it in the court of public opinion, and fought it in the Congress 
of the United States. She, Barbara Lee, and, of course, Judy Chu, so 
many of our women have taken the lead on this.
  But, again, although we are about a third of our Caucus--more than a 
third of our Caucus are women--our male colleagues have been very 
strong on this as well. Therefore, we will have today a vote for women, 
a vote for respect for women, a vote for decency, a vote for pride in 
our Constitution and in our women.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today praying that this House will be defenders 
of truth, humility, and justice.
  I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3755. The abortion on 
demand until birth act is extreme. Abortion for any reason, at any 
stage of pregnancy, until birth, is not the will of the American 
people.
  I spoke with a pediatric cardiologist just this week who shared with 
me what is possible today. It is just amazing, because of technology, 
what is possible.
  We all know that we can look into the womb and see the development of 
the baby day by day, week by week. This cardiologist told me that, 
today, doctors perform prenatal surgeries and treatments to save lives. 
He said doctors can perform surgeries on 20 different organs. That 
wasn't possible in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided. In fact, the 
first successful fetal surgery wasn't until 1982, many decades later.
  Look how far we have come. Science has evolved. It is my hope that we 
will learn from this and come to reject abortion because it is 
inhumane; it is not following the science; and it doesn't reflect the 
latest research or modern medicine.
  Abortion is the sharpest soul-searching question before us as a 
Nation. This question pierces every heart. People have strongly held 
beliefs and stories, and both sides are guilty of dismissing one 
another.
  For those of us who stand for life, we must do a better job of 
listening and loving. Fear and despair are only leading to more 
arguments, anger, discord, and insecurity.
  For me, personally, I have never had an abortion, but I gave thoughts 
in my younger years as to what I would do if I found myself pregnant 
and alone. It would have been a desperate situation. I can imagine 
abortion seeming like an easy solution. It breaks my heart, though, to 
think that anyone would consider abortion as their only option or the 
best option.
  Growing up, I was not much of a baby person. I was 35 and single when 
I was elected to Congress, and I didn't even know if being a mom was 
part of my future. Today, I can testify that bringing a new life into 
the world is the most amazing thing ever. It is the best part of life.
  We have two daughters and a son, Cole, Grace, and Brynn. Cole, now 
14, was born with the most common chromosomal abnormality. It is called 
Down syndrome. When he was born, the doctors gave us a long list of 
challenges and chances for heartache.
  I understand the uncertainty. I understand the fear. But I couldn't 
imagine my life without Cole. His life is worth living.
  Yet, in this debate, Down syndrome has been at the forefront. Just 
yesterday, a woman named Heidi with Down syndrome lost her court 
challenge against the British Government over its law allowing abortion 
up until birth for babies with Down syndrome.
  This cannot become America's future, where we cherish life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness for all.
  Like in the U.K., the bill before us is discriminatory. It allows for 
abortions based on a baby's sex, race, or disability.
  It would override counseling requirements that protect women from 
coercion from people who have abused them. It would prohibit laws 
designed to protect against sex trafficking and the exploitation of 
young girls and women. It would weaken protections for medical 
professionals who have religious objections to abortion.
  Despite what the majority says, this bill does not codify Roe v. 
Wade. This is radical.

                              {time}  0945

  Under this bill, viability is whatever the abortionist deems it to 
be.
  I urge all of my colleagues today to stop the abortion on demand 
until birth act.
  Open your minds to science, technology. Look and see the mysteries of 
the mother's womb. Open your ears to the cries of the unborn.
  May hearts break and may we celebrate life. Let's uphold the value, 
the dignity, and the potential of every life.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 60 other civil 
rights organizations in support of the Women's Health Protection Act.

                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2021.

           Support the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021

       Dear Representative: The Leadership Conference on Civil and 
     Human Rights, and the 60 undersigned organizations dedicated 
     to protecting and advancing the civil rights, health, and 
     economic security of all persons in the United States write 
     in support of the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 (H.R. 
     3755). We urge all members to vote yes on the bill when it 
     reaches the floor.
       By protecting abortion access from medically unnecessary 
     restrictions that obstruct the right of all persons to obtain 
     safe, legal abortion services, the Women's Health Protection 
     Act (WHPA) seeks to remedy and prevent the onslaught of 
     state-level abortion bans and restrictions that cause 
     significant and sometimes insurmountable challenges to 
     receiving abortion care. These challenges disproportionately 
     impact the ability of low-income women and women of color to 
     access health care, robs individuals of bodily autonomy, and 
     threatens the economic security of families and individuals, 
     many of whom are already struggling to get by.
       This issue is one of grave urgency. Just this month, five 
     Supreme Court justices denied an emergency request to block 
     Texas S.B. 8, a radical six-week abortion ban. Immediate 
     Congressional action is imperative for the future of abortion 
     rights in the United States. We are deeply concerned about 
     the threat of copycat bills appearing in states across the 
     country.
       Indeed, abortion rights and access have been steadily under 
     attack. Despite large public support for access to abortion, 
     state lawmakers enacted more than 90 restrictions on abortion 
     this year, including 11 bans--two of which are near-total 
     abortion bans. States have also continued to enact or 
     introduce legislation that restricts access to medication 
     abortion, imposes medically unnecessary restrictions on 
     abortion clinics, or singles out abortion providers for 
     burdensome

[[Page H5145]]

     restrictions not applied to other healthcare providers. 
     Today, nearly 90 percent of American counties have no 
     abortion provider, forcing people to incur onerous costs to 
     travel long distances for care, or pushing care entirely out 
     of reach.
       These laws are not only a threat to the constitutional 
     right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade, but they are a 
     threat to the economic security, health, and dignity of low-
     income people, women of color, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and 
     others who--because of a history of structural inequality and 
     discrimination--already have difficulty accessing 
     reproductive healthcare services. Restrictions that force 
     patients to undergo unnecessary tests or procedures, force 
     providers to communicate confusing and medically inaccurate 
     information, or force individuals to make multiple clinic 
     visits drive up individual costs, which can delay abortion 
     access and aggravate economic and health disparities felt by 
     women of color, low-income people, immigrants, LGBTQ people, 
     and other marginalized or multi-marginalized groups.
       Restrictive abortion laws that contribute to clinic 
     closures and abortion deserts also increase the cost of 
     obtaining abortion, and Black women are impacted by clinic 
     closures to a greater degree than other groups. Systemic 
     inequality brought on by past and present policies that 
     target and oppress Black people--including the legacy of 
     slavery, mass incarceration, segregation, voter suppression, 
     and exploitative financial practices, such as redlining--have 
     led to concentrated and intergenerational poverty within the 
     Black community. As a result, Black women have diminished 
     access to networks and resources to overcome financial 
     obstacles to accessing care. In the context of clinic 
     closures or abortion deserts, this can mean a de facto ban on 
     abortion. Black women are half as likely to be able to travel 
     25 to 50 miles for abortion care than White women, who tend 
     to have more financial resources, information, and social 
     networks that allow them to travel.
       Restricting access to abortion also threatens to undermine 
     the ability of poorer people and people of color to achieve 
     economic security. People of color and women are 
     disproportionately represented in low-wage jobs, and women of 
     color continue to endure discriminatory wage gaps. Black 
     women, for example, are typically paid just 63 cents for 
     every dollar paid to a White man. American Indian and Native 
     Alaskan women are paid only 60 cents, Latina women are paid 
     only 55 cents, and some Asian American and Pacific Islander 
     women are paid as low as 50 cents for every dollar paid to a 
     White man. Restrictions on accessing abortion, in addition to 
     public funding bans, mean that low-income people and many 
     women of color have to choose between paying their rent, 
     purchasing food, or paying for other basic necessities, and 
     receiving abortion care.
       Studies also show that women who are denied abortion care 
     face more economic hardship and risks to their health and 
     safety than women who sought and received abortions. Women 
     denied abortion care are more likely to experience poor 
     health outcomes, including maternal death, as compared to 
     women who received abortions, a trend that is particularly 
     concerning for Black women who are up to four times more 
     likely to experience pregnancy-related death than White 
     women. Women who are denied an abortion and forced to bear a 
     child are also four times more likely to fall into poverty. 
     Conversely, abortion access has been shown to increase 
     women's participation in the workforce, particularly for 
     Black women, and has led to gains in educational attainment.
       Every person deserves to have the ability to make the 
     healthcare decisions that are right for them, and every 
     person must be able to make their own decisions about having 
     children, free from government interference and 
     discrimination. Laws that restrict access to abortion cause 
     the most harm to those who, because of structural racism and 
     existing inequities, already have limited access to 
     resources, are already struggling to achieve economic 
     security, and who already face sometimes life-threatening 
     health disparities. At the most basic level, restrictive 
     abortion laws are aimed at controlling who can exercise their 
     constitutional rights and who can claim agency over their 
     bodies. As such, these laws are an affront to human dignity 
     that perpetuate systems of oppression that prevent the full 
     enjoyment of civil and human rights. The Women's Health 
     Protection Act is an important step in ending these harmful 
     laws and promoting the health, economic security, and well-
     being of those whom we have forced through law and policy to 
     live at the margins.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
       The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; ADL 
     (Anti-Defamation League); American Association of University 
     Women (AAUW); American Atheists; American Federation of 
     Teachers; American Humanist Association; Americans for 
     Democratic Action (ADA); Americans United for Separation of 
     Church and State; Asian American Legal Defense and Education 
     Fund (AALDEF); Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Black Women's 
     Health Imperative; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); 
     Christian Methodist Episcopal Church; Clearinghouse on 
     Women's Issues; Demand Justice; Equal Rights Advocates; 
     Equality California; Feminist Majority Foundation; Fix Our 
     Senate; Freedom From Religion Foundation.
       Girls Inc.; Global Project Against Hate and Extremism; 
     Hispanic Federation; Human Rights Campaign; Impact Fund; 
     Indivisible; Jacobs Institute of Women's Health; Jewish 
     Council for Public Affairs; Justice for Migrant Women; Lake 
     Research Partners; Lambda Legal; LatinoJustice PRLDEF; 
     Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Matthew 
     Shepard Foundation; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
     Inc. (LDF); NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Action 
     Network; National Association of Social Workers; NASW 
     Virginia/Metro DC Chapters; National Center for Transgender 
     Equality.
       National Council of Jewish Women; National Health Law 
     Program; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National 
     Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women & 
     Families; National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; 
     People For the American Way; Planned Parenthood Federation of 
     America; Population Connection Action Fund; Public Citizen; 
     Restaurant Opportunities Centers United; Rise Up America; 
     SEIU; The Workers Circle; Union for Reform Judaism; Voices 
     for Progress; Voto Latino; Women Lawyers On Guard Action 
     Network, Inc., YWCA Berkeley/Oakland; YWCA USA.

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, in 1970 I watched the New York State 
Assembly pass one of the first State laws legalizing abortion. If you 
had told me then that 51 years later, I would be standing on the House 
floor still fighting for women to have the right to make their own 
decisions about their own lives, their own health, and their own 
families, I would have called you crazy.
  We must pass this bill today to end this decades-long war on abortion 
and women's underlying freedom to control their own lives. I urge all 
my colleagues to stand up for freedom, stand up for abortion, stand up 
for bodily integrity and vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, the archbishop of San Francisco said, 
``This proposed legislation is nothing short of child sacrifice.''
  The inappropriately named Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 would 
codify the ability to obtain abortions for any reason at any point in 
pregnancy. This bill would also preempt and repeal State laws that 
require informed consent, ultrasounds, or other testing and counseling 
before undertaking an elective abortion.
  As a practicing heart surgeon for 15 years prior to coming to 
Congress, I operated on children as young as 23 weeks gestation, late 
second trimester. In fact, the smallest baby I operated on weighed only 
650 grams, which is about 1.4 pounds.
  I spent my career in medicine caring for patients regardless of their 
situation, so I take access to healthcare very seriously. I can assure 
you that my tiny patients were people.
  I find it troubling that those on the other side, most of whom have 
never spent a day taking care of patients, continue to mislead the 
American people about what constitutes healthcare.
  The archbishop also said, ``A child is not an object to be thrown 
away.'' Vote against this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Assistant Speaker.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, it is the Constitution 
that says women have the right to make their own decisions regarding 
their bodies. It is the Constitution that gives people the right to 
make a decision about abortion with their families, their doctor, and 
in accordance with their faith.
  But for over 50 years this right has been under attack. And today we 
say there is no room in that decision for politicians, there is no room 
for bounty hunters. This decision resides with people, with women.
  Today, we will pass the Women's Health Protection Act, and we will 
say clearly: This right is now enshrined in law, and we are not going 
back.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a classmate and a champion 
for life.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3755, 
the so-called Women's Health Protection Act. This should be called the 
destruction of unborn babies at any stage of development act.
  The principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are 
America's

[[Page H5146]]

foundation. Without question, life is the fundamental component to both 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  The American people understand the importance of protecting life. An 
AP Poll shows that 54 percent of Americans believe abortions should be 
illegal in the third trimester. Another 26 percent believe it should be 
illegal in most cases in the third trimester. What is more, 65 percent 
of Americans believe abortion without restriction should be illegal 
during the second trimester as well.
  But this latest Democrat scheme would go against the wishes of the 
American people and make abortion on demand for any reason legal until 
the time of birth.
  It is clear to see that the so-called Women's Health Protection Act 
is not about protecting the lives of unborn female babies. It is about 
handing the anti-unborn baby industry a victory it has sought for many 
years.
  I oppose H.R. 3755, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We are a 
country that up until now has valued life, and the majority of 
Americans still value life, especially the lives of unborn children.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu), the prime sponsor of this legislation.
  Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, 
the Women's Health Protection Act.
  For decades, Roe v. Wade has guaranteed everyone the freedom to 
access safe abortion care regardless of background. And for decades 
anti-abortion extremists have been devising new ways to put that right 
out of reach. That has left many, mainly low-income people of color, to 
fear that every new anti-choice law could be the one that finally puts 
abortion access out of reach for them or their daughters.
  Well, it is time to put a stop to these attacks once and for all. 
With today's historic vote, we are ensuring that access to abortion 
care is a right, from Texas to California.
  This bill respects our right and the freedom to make our own choices 
about our bodies, and it leaves those decisions up to us and our 
doctors. It is time to take control of our bodies out of the hands of 
extreme rightwing politicians. It is time to pass the Women's Health 
Protection Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a colleague from the Energy 
and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill, 
and with great compassion for the women being lied to by the 
deceptively named Women's Health Protection Act.
  Madam Speaker, let's be clear, this bill is not about healthcare. It 
is an extreme bill that would impose abortion on demand nationwide up 
until birth and override commonsense pro-life laws at the State level, 
laws like those intended to prevent abortion discrimination based upon 
a child's sex or based on whether the child has Down syndrome, laws 
that provide parental notification for minor girls, informed consent 
for patients, and health and safety protections specific to abortion 
facilities. All would be banned under this bill.

  The bill before us would ban virtually all conscience protections for 
medical personnel and enable the use of taxpayer money to fund abortion 
procedures, violating sincerely held beliefs of millions of Americans 
on the sanctity of human life.
  The abortion on demand act ignores the humanity of the baby and the 
health of the mother. It ignores the reality that life is sacred. It is 
a precious, God-given gift that must be cherished and protected.
  While it is comforting to know that God is loving, He is also just. 
We destroy innocent life at our own peril. What God condemns, we must 
not condone. May God heal our land.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the chairwoman of our Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, what we are seeing in Texas, Mississippi, 
and elsewhere is an unprecedented attack on Americans' right to 
abortion care. It is a systemic effort by politicians who want to roll 
back the clock on women's healthcare freedom in this country.
  To those who continue to rehash the same outdated arguments that 
would put their own personal beliefs on millions of women, and they say 
it is somehow good for America, I say, save your breath. It is not.
  And for these overheated claims that are being made today on this 
floor and the rhetoric, I say that is simply not the case.
  Madam Speaker, let me suggest a different paradigm that protects the 
full range of women's healthcare freedom in this country. I will decide 
what happens to my body, and you decide what happens to yours. I will 
decide what is best for my health and my life, and you decide what is 
best for yours.
  What is at stake in this fight is not some frivolous benefit. It is 
the fundamental right of women across the country to decide. Vote 
``yes'' on this important bill.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), a champion for life.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
unconscionable abortion on demand until birth act.
  As a mother and a grandmother of two precious grandsons, I am 
sickened by the attempt to allow abortions on demand until birth.
  As a pharmacist, I have seen countless women who struggle with 
infertility issues. All they ever wanted was to be able to give birth 
and to have and to hold those precious children of their own.
  Contrast this with what is happening today.
  My colleagues across the aisle, many of them are women. They are 
trying to make it easier to abort for reasons like bad timing or 
inconvenience. Under this law, every State will be a late-term abortion 
State, where abortions can be performed until birth for any reason with 
no accountability or protections for women.
  This is heartbreaking to me, and it is heartbreaking to all of the 
women I have helped overcome fertility issues over the years.
  I have talked to many women who have had abortions. Most of them 
think about that baby they aborted every day. What would their baby 
look like? What would their baby have grown up to be? Whom would they 
have married? How many children would they have had? How could that 
unborn baby have affected our country or our world?
  There is such a sorrow that follows these women post-abortion. I want 
those women who have had abortions to know this: Nothing is wasted, and 
there is forgiveness from a loving God.
  They can make a difference today, even now, by praying. I will 
continue to advocate on behalf of the right to life. I believe it is a 
moral and a God-given responsibility that we protect these treasured 
trusts from Heaven.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this unmerciful 
and unthinkable bill. The sanctity of human life depends on it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who chairs our Consumer Protection and 
Commerce Subcommittee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Women's Health Protection Act that will end the horrifying State-level 
attacks on abortion access. The Texas law would encourage vigilantism 
and criminalizes anyone who would even help someone to get an abortion. 
But Texas is not alone.
  Abortion is healthcare. This is a pro-choice country, a pro-choice 
nation. Women can make the decision to have a child or not have a 
child. It is about bodily autonomy.
  I want to be very clear; Roe v. Wade was not the beginning of women 
having abortions. It was the end of women dying from abortions.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
legislation and to say ``no'' to harming women.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a champion for life.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, one word. Heartbreaking. This legislation 
my Democrat colleagues are trying to enact is just plain old 
heartbreaking.

[[Page H5147]]

History will not look kindly on this abortion on demand legislation.
  Let me be clear. This is not about healthcare. This goes far beyond 
the guise of healthcare. This, in fact, is infanticide. A society is 
judged by how they treat the most vulnerable among us by God, and God 
will judge us.

                              {time}  1000

  That is why we must always stand for life, both the born and, of 
course, today we are talking about the unborn.
  As a father of four, a grandfather of eight with one on the way, 
protecting life will always be my priority, and I urge a ``no'' vote on 
H.R. 3755.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our Democratic majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  This is a serious issue. Some would say it is an issue about freedom, 
about individual integrity, as to who makes choices. I hear a lot about 
freedom, about government not interfering.
  Madam Speaker, millions of women across our country and the men who 
stand with them are in shock and outrage at the new law in Texas and 
the Supreme Court's refusal to block it from taking effect. Texas 
senate bill 8 bans any abortion after 6 weeks. That is, of course, 
before most women know that they are pregnant.
  It includes no exceptions for rape or incest. What do you think the 
psychological impact on the health of a woman is if you don't think 
this is about the health of women?
  As many as 90 percent of women seeking reproductive care in Texas do 
so after 6 weeks, meaning that this law effectively bans women in the 
State from accessing the full range of reproductive care that they are 
guaranteed under Roe v. Wade. Now, my presumption is, of course, most 
speaking against this are not for and didn't support and would like to 
see Roe v. Wade repealed.
  Also deeply disturbing is the way senate bill 8 is enforced. The law 
gives any private individual the authority to police any of their 
fellow citizens whom they suspect may be providing for or receiving 
reproductive care. How draconian, how communistic, how authoritarian 
such a scheme is.
  This vigilante system is at odds with the values of American 
democracy, reminiscent of the kind of tactics previously used behind 
the Iron Curtain and still employed by totalitarian regimes.
  The bill before us today would enshrine in statute the rights women 
are guaranteed under Roe v. Wade that the majority of Americans support 
at a time when they are increasingly under attack.
  Statistics released in June by the Guttmacher Institute showed that 
over 500 bills restricting women's healthcare access had already been 
introduced since the start of this year in State legislatures; and as 
of last month, nearly 100 of those had been enacted.
  The policies enacted by senate bill 8 and similar measures in other 
States under Republican control not only have the effect of eliminating 
access to reproductive choice, but also to a range of lifesaving 
healthcare services for women, particularly for low-income women.
  This will probably not affect many wealthy women who can get in their 
car or get on the airplane and go wherever they might go. So opposition 
to this bill is directly discriminatory to women of less means to their 
healthcare. These range from cancer screenings to prenatal visits; from 
treating injuries to referring patients to counseling after trauma like 
sexual assault.
  According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, nearly 90 percent of 
American counties do not have a single reproductive care provider.
  For many women, the health clinics that provide these services are 
their primary source of healthcare. Measures like senate bill 8 are 
forcing many of these clinics to shut down.
  Our country ought to be working to expand these resources for women, 
not make the healthcare harder to access.
  We know that S.B. 8 and similar laws being enacted across the country 
will not stop women from seeking the full range of reproductive care. 
You know that. Back to the hanger, perhaps, and the death of scores, 
thousands, perhaps, of women who see no alternative.
  The Women's Health Protection Act is a necessary response to 
Republicans' efforts to make it harder for women to access healthcare 
across the country. I thank Judy Chu for leading this effort. I am 
grateful to Congresswoman Chu for authoring this legislation and 
championing this cause.
  I am the father of three daughters, the grandfather of two 
granddaughters, and the great-grandfather of three great-
granddaughters. I, frankly, do not want any of us making decisions for 
their healthcare.
  Democrats are committed to taking action to secure Roe v. Wade and to 
protect women's access to reproductive healthcare no matter where they 
live.
  The Women's Health Protection Act is a critical step in securing that 
ability for millions of American women, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, such a sad day. It is 
beautiful outside, the Sun is shining.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), 
a champion for life.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington 
for yielding me the time.
  We hear a lot of talk coming from the other side about this Texas 
law, but I want to talk about the legislation that we have in front of 
us today and what effects that will have.
  Madam Speaker, it should be called the abortion on demand bill 
because it does nothing to protect women's health; rather, it 
supersedes States' rights and makes any protection for women and unborn 
children illegal.
  This bill will override countless protective State laws like parental 
notice, clinic regulations, and informed consent before an abortion.
  The abortion on demand act would not only strip States of their 
rights to protect women and babies, but it would also strip away a 
parent's right to be involved and informed on their child's health and 
well-being.
  What about protecting minors? Would States be allowed to ensure 
parental involvement or even notification? The answer is, of course, no 
under this legislation. In fact, it is just the contrary. The bill 
strips all of these protections provided by State laws.

  One of my highest priorities as a Member of Congress is protecting 
the right to life for all innocent life from conception until natural 
death. This bill is a shameful attempt to override States' rights and 
codify widespread abortion on demand in this country.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Miss Rice).
  Miss RICE of New York. Madam Speaker, the extreme abortion ban in 
Texas makes it clear: We need a Federal law that protects the right to 
abortion.
  The Texas ban is not the first to attempt to eliminate abortion 
access across this country, and it will not be the last.
  Every year the attacks on reproductive health get worse, and we know 
these attacks are not about the sanctity of life. If they were, 
Republicans would be wearing masks, they would be promoting the 
vaccine, and they would be championing our childcare policies that have 
lifted millions of children out of poverty. We know what the true 
agenda is: It is about controlling women and taking away their God-
given right to make decisions about their own body.
  As the Supreme Court prepares to consider a case that will directly 
challenge Roe v. Wade, Congress needs to take action.
  Now is the time to pass the Women's Health Protection Act and protect 
abortion access for every single person across this country.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, continuing to celebrate 
life, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the biggest 
champion of all.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. For the first time ever by Congressional 
statute, this legislation would legally enable the violent death of 
unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, decapitation, forced 
expulsion from the womb, and deadly poisons for any reason until birth.
  This bill will nullify every modest pro-life restriction ever enacted 
by the States, including women's right-to-know laws in 35 States, 
parental involvement statutes in 37 States, pain

[[Page H5148]]

capable unborn child protection laws in 19 States, waiting period laws 
in 26 States, and more.
  This bill constitutes an existential threat to unborn babies.

  Madam Speaker, this bill is far outside the American mainstream and 
goes far beyond Roe v. Wade.
  This bill constitutes an existential threat to unborn children and to 
the value of life itself.
  For the first time ever by congressional statute, H.R. 3755 would 
legally enable the violent death of unborn baby girls and boys by 
dismemberment, decapitation, forced expulsion from the womb, deadly 
poisons, or other methods at any time until birth.
  A significant majority of Americans are deeply concerned about 
protecting the lives of unborn children.
  A 2021 Marist Poll found that 65 percent of Americans want Roe v. 
Wade reinterpreted to either send the issue to the states or stop 
legalized abortion.
  Of that 65 percent majority of Americans--40 percent of Democrats 
would ``allow certain restrictions on abortions as determined by each 
state.''
  If enacted, this bill will nullify every modest prolife restriction 
ever enacted by the states including: women's right to know laws in 35 
states; parental involvement statues in 37 states; pain capable unborn 
child protection laws in 19 states; and waiting period laws in 26 
states, and more.
  Seventy percent of Americans, according to the 2021 Marist poll, 
oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down syndrome--with over 
half of those who identify as pro-choice (56 percent), opposed, or 
strongly opposed to abortion due to the expectation a child will be 
born with Down syndrome. Americans seek to ``embrace'' and not 
``erase'' those babies identified as having an extra chromosome.
  H.R. 3755 overturns state laws that protect children with Down 
syndrome as well.
  The U.S. Supreme Court majority in Roe v. Wade wrote: ``We need not 
resolve the difficult question of when human life begins.'' 
Sidestepping that threshold question and giving no benefit of the doubt 
to the child, they went on to legalize and enable abortion on demand.
  For decades, abortion advocates have gone to extraordinary lengths to 
ignore, trivialize, and cover-up the battered baby-victim.
  But today, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are more visible than 
ever before.
  Modern medicine today treats unborn children with disability or 
disease as a patient in need of diagnosis and treatment.
  Birth is an event--albeit an important one--but not the beginning of 
life.
  Regarding international law, the bill falsely states that ``Core 
human rights treaties ratified by the United States protect access to 
abortion.''
  In fact, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 
which the U.S. has ratified, is concerned about unborn children being 
killed. It states in Article 6 that ``Every human being has the 
inherent right to life'' and that ``No one shall be arbitrarily 
deprived of his life.''
  It goes on to declare that the ``sentence of death . . . shall not be 
carried out on pregnant women.'' The ICCPR creates an exemption from 
execution for pregnant women, recognizing that their unborn children 
have an independent claim to legal protection, as do all unborn 
children.
  The legislation under consideration by the House today is deceptively 
titled the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021. Abortion is not 
health care unless one construes the precious life of an unborn child 
to be analogous to a tumor to be excised or a disease to be vanquished.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Schrier).
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, Texas' law to pay vigilantes to sue 
anyone who enables an abortion after 6 weeks is just the latest gross 
overreach to make it virtually impossible for women to get abortion 
care.
  These laws take away a woman's right to determine if and when to have 
a child. And I can tell you as a doctor that these laws also undermine 
a doctor's oath to help her patients and the trust between doctor and 
patient, not to mention the women's own health.
  It is long past time to stop States from putting up absurd roadblocks 
with no medical justification, like hallway size, arbitrary waiting 
periods, unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds, government scripted 
propaganda, and hospital admitting privileges for procedures that don't 
require a hospital.
  This bill blocks States from putting up these barriers to care.
  As the only pro-choice woman doctor in Congress, I urge my colleagues 
to join me in protecting a woman's right to a legal, safe abortion no 
matter where she lives by supporting the Women's Health Protection Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, as we continue to 
celebrate life, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Mrs. McClain).
  Mrs. McCLAIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
for her diligent effort to save the lives of unborn children. And that 
is really what this bill is about, saving the lives of unborn children.
  For all of us that have children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, 
this is about them and their rights. I hear us talking about our 
rights, but what about their rights? Don't they have a right? Because 
they have no choice. So thank you for being their voice.
  But I rise today to speak the truth. I want to talk about the truth, 
which doesn't happen much. This act is titled the Women's Health 
Protection Act, more properly titled the abortion on demand act.
  Stop hiding behind Texas. Stop hiding behind women's rights.
  The majority has chosen once again to lie to the American people 
about what this legislation is about. This bill has nothing to do with 
women's health. This bill is about infanticide. To my Democratic 
colleagues, if you are in support of infanticide, just say it. You 
don't need to sugar coat it. Just say it. To my democratic colleagues, 
if you are in support of killing a child for any reason, you wanted a 
boy but it is a girl, oh, we will just get rid of it and try again, 
just have the courage and the guts to say it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Speaker, my generation and every generation of 
women after us has grown up with the freedom and the security under Roe 
v. Wade.
  Today those protections are under attack from lawmakers and 
activists, many of whom have never had to make the tough personal 
decisions about family planning or about the health of a pregnancy.
  Those attacks have been successful, and it is chilling as a mom of 
two young daughters.
  Roe is on the verge of elimination, and millions of women are rightly 
terrified of what that means for their bodily autonomy and the future 
of reproductive care even beyond abortion.
  Today, we are going to pass the Women's Health Protection Act because 
we know that no one can be more trusted to make the best health 
decisions for themselves than women.
  The government should not have a role in that choice, and I reject 
the hypocrisy on the other side of the aisle that suggests otherwise.
  Please, join us in passing this critical legislation and protecting 
reproductive rights, protecting the freedom of women to decide. If not 
for the people you represent, then for the women in your lives.

                              {time}  1015

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a champion for life.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Speaker, this is one of those moments I am 
actually behind the microphone to say thank you. I was born in an unwed 
mother's home--so was my brother; so was my sister--and you have all 
met my little girl, as she is here, that came to us as a gift out of 
nowhere.
  But when I was 38 years old, through a series of accidents, I got the 
phone number from my birth mother, and I called her. The first words 
were just through the tears and this high-pitched almost--she was 
struggling; you could hear her almost hyperventilating. ``I pray for 
you every morning. Are you okay? Are you healthy? Are you happy?'' I am 
crying on my side, saying: ``I have a great life. Thank you for letting 
me live.''
  Today in the Schweikert family and the Hoyle family, and all of our 
families together--my little girl is third-generation adopted now. 
Maybe we are doing something wrong in the family. We would get together 
with our birth moms and our moms. The amazing thing is my mom became 
best of friends with my birth mom.
  This is the American family of today. Let's love it and respect it.

[[Page H5149]]

  

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 17 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Women's Health 
Protection Act. As an original cosponsor of the bill, I thank 
Representative Chu for her leadership on this important bill.
  As a woman from Texas, I thank this body for responding with urgency 
to my beloved home State's cruel law, depriving Texans of their 
constitutional rights, by bringing this bill to the floor today.
  In this moment, it is a Texas law, a law quickly being copied across 
the country, that has brought us here. But let us remember that it was 
also Texas that brought us the framework for this bill that we will 
pass today to protect the health, privacy, dignity, and freedom of 
women and families across this country in the case of Roe v. Wade. It 
was a 26-year-old Texas woman named Sarah Weddington who took that case 
all the way to the Supreme Court.
  Texas women have fought and will continue to fight for the rights 
that we protect here today. I am proud to be one of them and to vote in 
favor of this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from NARAL Pro-Choice 
America.

                 Statement of NARAL Pro-Choice America


   The Women's Health Protection Act (H.R. 3755)--september 24, 2021

       Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to the 
     U.S. House of Representatives on this critical legislation. 
     NARAL Pro-Choice America (NARAL) is a national advocacy 
     organization, dedicated to protecting and advancing 
     reproductive freedom, including access to abortion, 
     contraception, paid leave, and protection from pregnancy 
     discrimination, as a fundamental right and value. Through 
     education, organizing, and influencing public policy, NARAL 
     and our 2.5 million members from every state and 
     congressional district in the country work to guarantee every 
     individual the freedom to make personal decisions about their 
     lives, bodies, and futures, free from political interference. 
     For this reason, we are submitting this statement to thank 
     leadership for holding this vote and to call on Congress to 
     pass the Women's Health Protection Act in order to safeguard 
     the federal right to abortion against bans and medically 
     unnecessary restrictions.
       The legal right to abortion faces its greatest threat in 
     decades. Despite overwhelming public support, 8 in 10 
     Americans, for the legal right to abortion, we're in the 
     midst of an all-out assault on reproductive freedom with Roe 
     v. Wade hanging in the balance. The need to enshrine the 
     legal right to abortion in federal statute is more urgent 
     than ever. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon 
     hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a direct 
     challenge to Roe v. Wade, and that it declined to block 
     Texas's extreme abortion ban, allowing Roe to be rendered 
     meaningless in the state, represent ominous signs for the 
     future of abortion rights in this country.
       Earlier this month, the Supreme Court failed to intervene 
     and subsequently rejected an emergency request to block Texas 
     Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), a blatantly unconstitutional ban on 
     abortion. This law bans abortion at approximately six weeks 
     before many people even know they are pregnant. It also 
     grants private citizens the power to sue abortion providers 
     and anyone else who helps someone access abortion care; this 
     includes clergy members or counselors, abortion funds that 
     assist someone in paying for abortion care, and even someone 
     who drives a patient to their appointment, like family 
     members, friends, and rideshare drivers. An individual who 
     successfully sues someone for assisting a pregnant person 
     seeking abortion care would receive a financial reward of 
     $10,000. The Supreme Court's decision to allow SB 8 to go 
     into effect essentially gave Texas the green light to render 
     Roe v. Wade meaningless in the state and empowered anti-
     choice lawmakers to use this law as a blueprint to roll back 
     reproductive freedom in their own states.
       The pending Supreme Court case is set against a backdrop of 
     increasingly cruel and draconian restrictions and bans as 
     anti-choice politicians escalate their quest to end legal 
     abortion.
       Even as Roe stands, though it has long not been a reality 
     for many, the further evisceration of abortion access is 
     ramping up. In addition to Texas's ban, state lawmakers 
     seeking to advance their agenda of power and control have 
     passed hundreds of state-level attacks on abortion access 
     over the last decade that have made care extremely difficult, 
     if not impossible, to access for many people across the 
     country. Systematic attacks on reproductive freedom and 
     abortion access, including bans on abortion coverage, 
     intentionally push access out of reach and have rendered 
     meaningless the protections and rights afforded by Roe v. 
     Wade for many people across the country.
       The unprecedented threat to the right to abortion 
     underscores the urgent need for Congress to pass the Women's 
     Health Protection Act. Every day without congressional action 
     to protect abortion rights and expand abortion access means 
     that more and more people are denied the right to abortion 
     and ability to access the care that they need--and we know 
     that this disproportionately affects women, Black, Indigenous 
     and People of Color (BIPOC), people working to make ends 
     meet, immigrants, young people, people with disabilities, 
     LGBTQ+ individuals, and those living in rural and other 
     medically underserved areas. Attacks on abortion rights and 
     access are rooted in racism, white supremacy, and other forms 
     of discrimination. Ending these barriers and ensuring equal 
     access to abortion care is central to the pursuit of 
     reproductive freedom and racial and economic justice.
       The looming threat to the future of legal abortion across 
     the country is the result of a decades-long far-right 
     strategy to advance a radical and out-of-touch ideological 
     agenda. In the late 1970s, radical conservatives weaponized 
     the formerly non-political, back-burner issue of abortion 
     rights as political cover for their efforts to maintain white 
     patriarchal control amidst diminishing support for racist 
     policies like school segregation, which had previously been 
     the backbone of their movement. In the years immediately 
     preceding and following Roe v. Wade, Evangelical Christians, 
     who now form the backbone of the GOP, were overwhelmingly 
     indifferent on the issue of abortion. But through the 
     carefully crafted messages of Paul Weyrich, Jerry Falwell, 
     and other architects of the Radical Right, abortion became 
     the political tool of choice for a movement determined to 
     maintain control in a changing world, and the trojan horse 
     for a far-reaching array of ideologies meant to thwart social 
     progress.
       In the intervening years, opposition to abortion has become 
     a litmus test in far-right circles for a host of political 
     and judicial positions. In order to advance their agenda--one 
     that has always stood in direct opposition to the values of 
     the majority of Americans--they developed and implemented a 
     strategy for capturing and maintaining minority rule. This 
     strategy included pushing regressive boilerplate legislation 
     chipping away at access to abortion through state 
     legislatures and Congress, as well as stacking the federal 
     judiciary with anti-choice ideologues.
       Anti-choice activists have spent decades building their 
     influence over the federal judiciary through well-funded, 
     secretive networks like the Federalist Society. Conservative 
     activists have never been shy about the fact that their 
     takeover of the federal judiciary is part of a broad strategy 
     to quell the majority and cement minority rule, but the 
     election of Donald Trump took this tactic to new heights. In 
     May 2016, Trump pledged to only nominate anti-choice judges, 
     a promise he doubled down on in 2020. And with the help of 
     Mitch McConnell, Trump installed anti-choice federal judges 
     with lifetime appointments at a breakneck pace. More than a 
     quarter of currently active federal judges are now Trump 
     appointees, including Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch, 
     Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett--tipping the balance 
     of the Court to a supermajority unmistakably hostile to 
     reproductive freedom. We have already seen this majority use 
     the so-called ``shadow docket'' to undermine the right to 
     abortion and abortion access. There is no denying that the 
     threat to Roe v. Wade is real.
       Anti-choice lawmakers, emboldened by the anti-choice 
     supermajority on the Court, have accelerated their push to 
     pass blatantly unconstitutional bans and restrictions on 
     abortion--introducing, advancing, or passing over 330 bills 
     attacking abortion access this year alone, some going as far 
     as criminalizing pregnant people and doctors who provide 
     abortion care. Now, more than ever, the anti-choice movement 
     is advancing its extremist agenda in plain sight. Already 
     this year, at least eight states have enacted laws that 
     criminalize doctors for providing abortion care. When 
     abortion care is criminalized, lives are on the line. Ending 
     legal abortion would roll back the clock for our rights, but 
     it would not eliminate abortion. It would only isolate and 
     endanger people trying to make the best decisions for their 
     lives and their futures.
       The interrogation and punishment of people who are pregnant 
     is not far-fetched--it is already happening. People across 
     the country are already being charged or prosecuted for 
     pregnancy outcomes including pregnancy loss, self-managing 
     abortion care, or even the suspicion of it. Criminalizing 
     people for having an abortion, experiencing a miscarriage or 
     stillbirth, or any other pregnancy outcome only exacerbates 
     racial inequities and is just one of the many ways that 
     Black, Indigenous, and other people of color have been 
     criminalized.
       NARAL Pro-Choice America strongly supports the Women's 
     Health Protection Act, which was re-introduced this year by 
     Representatives Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ayanna 
     Pressley (D-MA), and Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and Senators 
     Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). Roe v. 
     Wade and access to abortion care are on the line like never 
     before and this moment requires urgent action from Congress. 
     All people--no matter who they are or where they live--should 
     have the

[[Page H5150]]

     freedom to make their own decisions about whether to start or 
     grow a family, free from political interference. Enacting the 
     Women's Health Protect Act is a critical step toward creating 
     a world where every body is free to make the best decisions 
     for themselves, their families, and their lives.

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), chair of the House Committee 
on Oversight and Reform.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, our 
constitutional rights are under attack. We must pass the Women's Health 
Protection Act to firmly establish a statutory right to abortion care 
in every community across our country.
  Our rights are no longer being chipped away. They are being bulldozed 
into the ground. We must act now before it is too late.
  Madam Speaker, I thank our chairman for his extraordinary leadership 
on this issue, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, ``Let Freedom Ring'' has been replaced by 
Texas Republicans with ``Let vigilantes hunt.''
  Neighbors spying on neighbor. Offering $10,000 bounties on a driver, 
a physician, anyone who offered counsel. So invasive that an Arkansas 
convict has now sued a San Antonio physician. Mandatory motherhood, 
even in cases of rape and incest, with Republicans targeting only those 
survivors who are seeking healthcare.
  Protect the fundamental right of choice. Reject this narrow-minded, 
unconstitutional, Republican power-hungry, vigilante injustice. Join us 
next Saturday at the Women's March for Freedom at the State Capitol in 
Austin.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 3755. As co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, I am a proud original 
cosponsor. I thank my good friend and Congresswoman, Judy Chu, for her 
persistent leadership, also Chairman Pallone and the Speaker for 
bringing it to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, make no mistake, people deserve the freedom to control 
their own bodies, lives, and futures. We must protect the right to 
access abortion and to ensure that it is available and affordable.
  Now, I remember the days of back alley, unsafe abortions. We cannot, 
and we will not, go back to those days.
  Passing this bill would provide a critical safeguard against attacks 
on reproductive freedom and ensure that abortions are accessible and 
available for all, which means also low-income women and people of 
color. This is our body. It is our choice.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, it is past time we took the 
power to make deeply personal healthcare decisions out of Governors' 
mansions and State legislatures and put them back where they belong, in 
the hands of patients and their doctors.
  Just this week, my home State of Florida filed a horrific anti-
abortion bill that is a revolting assault on women's rights. With 
Federal courts becoming more hostile to reproductive access, we must 
not waver in the passage of the Women's Health Protection Act.
  Thankfully, this bill before us today protects the right to access 
abortion throughout the United States and safeguards against medically 
unnecessary bans and restrictions like those in Texas' S.B. 8.
  Equal access to abortion care everywhere is essential to economic 
participation, reproductive autonomy, and the right to determine our 
own lives.
  Congress has a responsibility to pass legislation that makes these 
human rights a reality.
  Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this vital piece of legislation.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I thank Judy Chu 
for their leadership.
  Madam Speaker, 10 years ago on this floor, I spoke about a second-
term abortion that I had. It was painful. It was hard. But I did 
because so many on the other side of the aisle that day knew nothing 
about what women endure. We are not vessels for a man to inject their 
sperm into and then walk away with no consequences.
  This is my body, not yours. Many on the other side of the aisle whine 
about the freedom that they have lost by having to wear masks, yet you 
want to take my freedom to control my body away from me.
  You have not carried a fetus in your body. You have not had a fetus 
die in your body. You have not had to mourn the loss. You stand there 
preaching birth but not life.
  This is my body. This is my life. This is my freedom.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, standing for life, 
standing as someone who has carried a baby and lost a baby, standing 
and continuing to celebrate life, I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Women's Health Protection Act.
  If we truly value women, we must protect their right to control their 
own bodies and their freedom to make their own healthcare decisions.
  This includes the right to safe abortion, guaranteed by the Supreme 
Court in Roe v. Wade almost 50 years ago--not more, nothing less.
  But this right is under fierce attack. We have seen wildly 
restrictive abortion bans, a $10,000 bounty on people who help women 
who are seeking abortion care. This is unconstitutional and dangerous.
  This bill will guarantee women all across this country the freedom to 
make their own healthcare decisions, a basic and well-established 
constitutional right.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Women's 
Health Protection Act, a historic vote which will cement the right to 
abortion in the United States.
  The impending cases before the Supreme Court are proof that the 
assault on women and Roe are real, and Congress must step up. Women 
have a right to full reproductive healthcare, including abortion. 
Lawmakers have a responsibility to uphold this right.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Women's 
Health Protection Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Speier). The gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Ms. DeGette) controls the balance of the time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, a woman who does not own or control her own 
body cannot call herself free.
  I want you to close your eyes and imagine being forced to give birth 
during a global pandemic: fewer in-person visits, more telehealth 
visits; new parents having children alone without their families, 
worrying if the baby will catch the virus; something goes wrong, there 
may not be space in the ICU.
  Now open your eyes to the truth. A woman should not have to yield 
control over her own choices and her own body.
  So let's pass this bill, the Women's Health Protection Act. That is 
what we need to do.

[[Page H5151]]

  

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 12 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 7 minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crist).
  Mr. CRIST. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and the gentlewoman 
from California for her leadership.
  Access to safe and legal abortion is about trust--trust in those 
seeking reproductive care, trust that they will know what is best for 
their bodies and their families, and trust in them to make a choice 
that only they can make about their own future.
  What we are seeing in Texas and in the Supreme Court is what happens 
when government wants to make the choice for you, and I am hearing from 
Floridians who are terrified that the Governor of Florida wants to 
bring Texas-style tyranny to the Sunshine State.
  Not on our watch. Vote ``yes'' on the Women's Health Protection Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, one in four women across America has had 
an abortion. I am one of them.
  It is a deeply personal choice about control of our own bodies and 
the consequences of a choice that only we will have to live with. Do 
not criminalize me and millions of women like me around the country. Do 
not criminalize those that help us.
  Let me be clear. The cruel Texas abortion law and decades of efforts 
to repeal Roe v. Wade are nothing but attempts to control our bodies 
and our choices.
  Madam Speaker, terminating my pregnancy was not an easy choice for 
me, but it was my choice. It is time to preserve that for all people.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, continuing to stand, 
celebrating life, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, Congress must protect women's 
constitutional freedom to decide over their bodies. After the cruel 
Texas--my home State--abortion ban, I visited the local Planned 
Parenthood and heard horrific stories of women already resorting to 
self-help, including finding an abortion tea on the internet.
  We cannot go back to the dark ages of using dangerous wire hangers 
for self-help and other things that will actually hurt and potentially 
kill women. We cannot continue to go back. We must move forward and 
protect our rights.
  Madam Speaker, I urge passage of the Women's Health Protection Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
  Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, generations of women fought for the right 
to vote, they fought for a seat in the university classroom, a seat in 
the boardroom, and a seat in our government. And they fought for the 
freedom for us to make our own decisions about our bodies.
  Generations of women secured these gains so that we could build on 
their efforts toward a just and equitable society. We cannot allow 
their work to be undone. That is why I am proud to vote in favor of the 
Women's Health Protection Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Constitution recognizes that 
there are limits that can be placed on the long arm of the law. The 
long arm of the law has limitations when it comes to speech. The long 
arm of the law has limitations when it comes to religion. And the long 
arm of the law has limitations in terms of how far it can extend into a 
women's womb.
  This bill checks the long arm of the law so that it does not extend 
too far into a women's womb.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, for 48 years the right to choose has been 
the law of the land, and it is time that Congress protects that right 
and access to the full range of reproductive care.
  States are passing dangerous bans on abortion that harm patients and 
criminalize doctors, and anti-choice legislators are erecting barriers 
that are ever more onerous for women. This has even happened in my home 
State of New Hampshire where the legislature passed an abortion ban and 
forced ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion.
  If the Supreme Court won't protect Roe v. Wade, then Congress must 
pass the Women's Health Protection Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley), an original cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Speaker, abortion care is a fundamental human 
right. Texas' unconscionable abortion ban is further evidence that 
lawmakers who aim to do harm will stop at nothing to attack our 
reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. But not on our watch.
  It is clear the Supreme Court is no longer on the side of justice and 
the pro-choice majority of the House of Representatives has a 
responsibility to stand in the gap and to act.
  Today, we must, and we will, pass the Women's Health Protection Act. 
I am proud to co-lead this bill with Congresswoman Chu to codify the 
right to abortion care.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with us to reaffirm 
reproductive justice and protect this fundamental right.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker,

     Open up, O heavens, and pour out your righteousness. Let the 
           Earth open wide so salvation and righteousness can 
           sprout up together.
     I, the Lord, created them.
     What sorrow awaits those who argue with their creator.
     Does a clay pot argue with its maker?
     Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, 
           Stop, you're doing it wrong?
     Does the pot exclaim, How clumsy can you be?
     How terrible it would be if the newborn baby said to its 
           father, Why was I born?
     Or if it said to its mother, Why did you make me this way?

  It is the word of the Lord.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Women's Health 
Protection Act.
  For almost my entire life, Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land. 
And after continuous attacks on Roe for the past five decades, I, for 
the first time fear that it is truly imperiled.
  The attacks on women's health in Texas and the court's refusal thus 
far to protect our Constitution and women lays out a roadmap really for 
States across the Nation. That is why this legislation is critical, so 
Congress can stand in the breach and protect women and our 
constitutional rights across the Nation.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, the far right, a 6-3 
majority on the Supreme Court, quietly overturned Roe v. Wade.
  Today, we pass the Women's Health Protection Act to restore 
reproductive freedom nationwide and protect fundamental rights that the 
Supreme Court will not.

  These justices will do whatever they can to erase reproductive 
rights. So we

[[Page H5152]]

must also restore balance to the Supreme Court by adding seats. The 
American people agree. Not just 90 percent of Democrats, but 61 percent 
of Independents.
  Until we end the domination of the far-right majority, reproductive 
freedom will never be secure.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, New Mexico is a border state with 
Texas. Because of the extreme abortion ban, our Texas hermanas are 
driving hours to receive abortion care in New Mexico.
  We are receiving women's rights refugees with open arms, hearts, and 
open clinics. To deputize complete strangers to interfere with a 
woman's health choice is constitutionally, medically, and morally 
wrong.
  Many minority, LGBTQ, and low-income women can't afford to travel and 
access quality healthcare. Let's pass the Women's Health Protection Act 
so that we can protect women's freedom in every State.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I stand before you today, the daughter 
of a single mother. I was the first in my family to go to college, an 
individual who just 10 years ago was homeless, and now today a Member 
of Congress.
  A Member of Congress. People like me are not supposed to be here. We 
just don't make it to quite this level, typically. And, quite frankly, 
I am not supposed to be here breathing. You see, my mom when she was 27 
years old suffered a stroke when she was pregnant with my sister. The 
doctors told her then that she would never be able to have children 
again.
  So you can imagine, years later when she found herself pregnant with 
me, she was scared and alone, and being told by her doctors that she 
would not only die, that the child would die, too, and that she must 
abort. But my mom did something incredibly brave that day, she made a 
choice against the advice of her doctors, against the pressure of her 
own family, and she chose life.
  You know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Madam 
Speaker, have been talking about how our constitutional rights are 
under attack, and I agree, they are. Because they begin with life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It starts with life.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand and fight for our unalienable 
rights and the rights of those little girls yet to be born.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).
  Ms. MANNING. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Women's 
Health Protection Act. Congress must take action against the 
Republican's relentless attacks on women's reproductive freedom, 
including medically unnecessary restrictions and blatantly 
unconstitutional bans on abortions. These State bans go against 50 
years of judicial precedent.
  We must take action now to protect women and their freedom to make 
decisions about their own bodies, their own health, their own families.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vital bill.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
  Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
reproductive freedom; for the people I met while working for Planned 
Parenthood who had to travel across State lines just to get the care 
that they need.
  The relentless assault on abortion in State legislatures and 
courtrooms has nothing to do with health or care. It is about scoring 
political points on the backs of those most marginalized.
  It might be Texas first, then Mississippi, then my home State of 
Georgia where, as we speak, another despicable abortion ban is having 
its day in Federal court right now.
  We can't leave the right to safe and legal abortion to the whim of 
States. Congress must ensure that everyone, no matter their ZIP Code, 
can make decisions about their health and families freely.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Women's Health Protection Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), my classmate and champion 
for life.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, the Women's Health Protection Act has 
a powerfully good name, but the name masks its intention.
  This bill would make America the most pro-abortion Nation on Earth. 
It in no way advances the principles of inclusion and equity routinely 
championed on this floor. It does just the opposite: it hurts the most 
vulnerable in our society, expectant mothers and their preborn 
children.
  So, my colleagues, my friends, I urge us, let's please turn from the 
contradictions here and maybe, just maybe, open our hearts to another 
way. When there is news of an unexpected pregnancy and that vulnerable 
moment of uncertainty, suppose that we as a community of care committed 
to the journey of life to help a mother and her child, before birth, at 
birth, and after birth. That is called commitment. That is called 
compassion. That is called love. That is called care for her.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, S.B. 8 will kill women. It is a 
dangerous, dangerous depriving of our constitutional rights, but it 
will kill women. It is a bill that provides a provision that I have 
never seen in my lifetime living in the United States of America, a 
free Nation.
  It actually sets a bounty, reminiscent of eras of dastardly life in 
this country, the slave life; a bounty in order to stalk a woman to 
ensure that the provider does not give and the woman does not get an 
abortion.
  I support this legislation because it upholds the Constitution, and I 
look forward to my bill on preventing vigilante stalking being passed.
  Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the 
Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security; a 
member of the Democratic Working Women's Task Force, the representative 
of 700,000 highly interested and affected persons in the Eighteenth 
Congressional District of Texas; as a sponsor of the legislation; and 
as a woman who was born and came of age during a period when the women 
of America were denied rights that men took for granted, including the 
basic human right of autonomy over one's own body and to decide for 
herself the profound and fundamental question of whether to bear or 
beget a child, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3755, the Women's 
Health Protection Act, which protects a person's ability to determine 
whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care 
provider's ability to provide abortion services.
  I am extremely pleased that the Biden-Harris Administration strongly 
endorses this legislation and urges its swift passage by the Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 3755 because it states clearly and 
unequivocally in Section 4 that a ``health care provider has a 
statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may 
provide abortion services, and that provider's patient has a 
corresponding right to receive such services, without any burdensome 
limitations or requirements.
  Burdensome and unlawful requirements include:
  1. A requirement that a health care provider perform specific tests 
or medical procedures in connection with the provision of abortion 
services, unless generally required for the provision of medically 
comparable procedures.
  2. A requirement that the same health care provider who provides 
abortion services also perform specified tests, services, or procedures 
prior to or subsequent to the abortion.
  3. A requirement that a health care provider offer or provide the 
patient seeking abortion services medically inaccurate information in 
advance of or during abortion services.
  4. A limitation on a health care provider's ability to prescribe or 
dispense drugs based on current evidence-based regimens or the 
provider's good-faith medical judgment, other than a limitation 
generally applicable to the medical profession.
  5. A limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide 
abortion services via telemedicine.

[[Page H5153]]

  6. A requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, 
equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements of facilities 
where abortion services are provided, or the credentials or hospital 
privileges or status of personnel at such facilities, that is not 
imposed on facilities or the personnel of facilities where medically 
comparable procedures are performed.
  7. A requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a patient make 
one or more medically unnecessary in-person visits to the provider of 
abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide 
abortion services.
  8. A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to 
fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular 
abortion procedure.
  9. A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-
faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, 
continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant 
patient's life or health.
  10. A limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide 
immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, 
based on the good-faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay 
would pose a risk to the patient's health.
  It is important to note that prior to fetal viability, the law 
prohibits a health care requiring a patient seeking abortion services 
to disclose the patient's reason or reasons for seeking abortion 
services, or a limiting the provision or obtaining of abortion services 
at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability based on any 
actual, perceived, or potential reason or reasons the health care 
provider believes the patient has for obtaining abortion services.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3755 contains another important provision, this 
one directed toward the judiciary, and it is that all courts are to 
``liberally construe'' the provisions of the law to effectuate the 
congressional intent in enacting the law and that courts are not to 
construe the act in anyway ``to authorize any government to interfere 
with a person's ability to terminate a pregnancy, or to diminish or in 
any way negatively affect a person's constitutional right to terminate 
a pregnancy.''
  To enforce the provisions of the legislation, the Attorney General is 
authorized to commence a civil action for prospective injunctive relief 
on behalf of the United States against any government official that is 
charged with implementing or enforcing any limitation or requirement 
that is challenged as a violation of a statutory right under this Act.
  In addition, H.R. 3755 authorizes private rights of action to be 
brought for injunctive relief against the government official that is 
charged with implementing or enforcing the challenged limitation or 
requirement by any individual or entity, including any health care 
provider, aggrieved by the alleged violation of this Act.
  Madam Speaker, swift, clear, and decisive action to codify the rights 
and protections provided by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision 
in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is the clearly required response to 
the more than 500 state laws restricting abortion access over the past 
decade.
  These regressive restrictions have eliminated access to abortion care 
in large swaths of the United States; nearly 90 percent of U.S. 
counties are without a single abortion provider and five states are 
down to their last clinic.
  The people hurt most by abortion restrictions are those who already 
face barriers to accessing health care-including Black, indigenous and 
persons of color, women, those working to make ends meet, members of 
the LGBTQI+ community, immigrants, young people, those living in rural 
communities, and people with disabilities.
  Madam Speaker, right-wing Republican legislators passed, and the 
Republican governor signed, Texas SB8, an extreme and facially 
unconstitutional law that contemptuously violates existing Supreme 
Court precedent.
  The Texas law significantly impairs women's access to critical 
reproductive health care, particularly affecting communities of color, 
individuals with low incomes, and those who live in rural or 
underserved communities.
  The law also turns private citizens into bounty hunters who are 
empowered to bring lawsuits against anyone who they believe has helped 
another person get an abortion, including family members, faith 
leaders, Uber drivers and others providing transportation, and health 
care providers.
  The new Texas law prohibits abortions as early as six weeks into a 
pregnancy and creates the opportunity for almost any private citizen to 
sue abortion providers and women seeking to terminate their pregnancy 
past six weeks.
  The law effectively bans abortion in Texas, as the six-week cutoff is 
just two weeks after a missed menstrual cycle.
  The ``hotline'' reporting system in the Texas law is particularly 
malicious.
  Since enforcement of the bill lies entirely with private citizens, 
Texans are incentivized to stalk women as they make vitally important 
decisions about their own health.
  It is anathema to the conscience of the United States of America to 
have individuals following women to determine whether they have or will 
receive an abortion.
  We saw similar occurrences during the KGB era of the Soviet Union, as 
neighbor spied on, lied against, and turned against neighbor to hand 
over their fellow citizens to the state.
  We are Americans, and to have a law that so blatantly foments 
distrust and stalking among our citizenry is a blatant spit in the face 
of the principles on which this country was founded.
  To assist in stopping this law, and to protect women from vigilante 
bounty hunters, I have introduced H.R. 5226, the ``Preventing Vigilante 
Stalking that Stops Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights 
Act of 2021.''
  This bill would enhance criminal penalties under the federal stalking 
statute if the stalking is done with the intent to prevent or report on 
a woman's health decisions.
  Importantly, this bill does not include any mandatory minimums.
  This bill will weaken the incentive to stalk women by bolstering the 
criminal penalties under the federal stalking statute if the stalking 
is intended to prevent or report on a woman's health decisions.
  Additionally, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court announced 
that in December it will hear argument on a Mississippi law banning 
abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which represents a direct 
challenge to the continued vitality of Roe v. Wade.
  Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of these continued 
attacks to undermine a woman's right to reproductive health care is 
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of 
circumstances.
  Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water 
broke and tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a 
premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved 
viability.
  This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a 
shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move 
limbs.
  In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the 
face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-
week point.
  There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would 
be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be 
able to eat on its own.
  Abridging a woman's right to reproductive health care hurts women 
like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy 
that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies 
and had no chance of survival and whose physician determined that 
because of Vikki's diabetes, induced labor and Caesarian section were 
both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion.
  SB8 is the most brazen, but not the first, attempt to roll back 
women's reproductive health care rights in Texas.
  In 2013 Texas passed a law that would have cut off access to 75 
percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state had it not been 
challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.
  On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional 
a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that 
provided the full range of services would be required to have a 
hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.
  This requirement meant that only 7 clinics in the entire state would 
be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive 
healthcare to women.
  But because Texas is a vast state comprising 268,580 square miles, 
(second only in size and population to the state of California), 
implementation of the law would have ended access to reproductive 
services for millions of women in my state.
  In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to 
reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 
healthcare providers in the state of Texas.
  The Supreme Court once again intervened on behalf of Texas women to 
block the move to close clinics.
  Madam Speaker, since the United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 
years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's 
constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion, both 
abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the 
number of teen and unwanted pregnancies.
  If opponents were so concerned about women's health and safety, they 
would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive 
policies that improve women's health and well-being.
  Instead, they are continuing their assault on women's constitutional 
rights and their campaign to outlaw abortion.
  That is their number one priority; it is certainly not about 
protecting women's health; it is about politics.

[[Page H5154]]

  It is clear women are under attack and must be on perpetual guard 
against new attacks on women's access to reproductive health care, 
often couched in those same terms.
  Madam Speaker, this is not what the American people want.
  Support for abortion access is at an all-time high; nearly 80 percent 
of Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
  There is no state in the Nation where making abortion illegal is 
popular.
  The American people want more access to health care, not less, and it 
is more critical than ever to see through this inflammatory 
misinformation campaign.
  Madam Speaker, the right to make decisions about reproductive health 
care, including abortion, is central to individual equality.
  The right enables a person to decide if, when, and how to start and 
grow their family.
  It enables people to pursue and advance in their education and 
employment, and to be full and equal participants in society.
  Laws that restrict reproductive freedom, including restrictions on 
abortion and birth control, perpetuate harmful stereotypes about gender 
roles and undermine gender equality.
  Courts, federal law, and the public have long connected reproductive 
freedom with equality.
  Reproductive freedom is central to women's equality, for as the 
Supreme Court said in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992): 
``The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and 
social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to 
control their reproductive lives.''
  Americans understand this connection and it is reflected in a January 
2019 national poll showing 71% of voters agree--48% agree strongly--
that equal rights for women includes access to reproductive health 
care.
  State laws like Texas SB8 represent unconstitutional infringements on 
the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long 
line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 
(1965) and, of course, Roe v. Wade.
  In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a 
woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to 
protect her health prior to viability.
  While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus 
of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not 
occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
  Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a 
state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of 
gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the 
determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 
(1979).
  The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right 
of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even 
later, where continuing the pregnancy to term poses a threat to a 
woman's life, health, or safety.
  This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.
  Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different, and no politician knows, 
or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her 
family.
  These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in 
consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.
  I urge all Members to join me in voting to protect a person's ability 
to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a 
health care provider's ability to provide abortion services by voting 
for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.

                [From the Intelligencer, Sept. 3, 2021]

              Texas Is Already Creating Abortion Refugees

                          (By Melissa Jeltsen)

       Just pause and breathe. We're going to help, but I need you 
     to take a breath and calm down for a moment.
       Kathaleen Pittman, director of the Hope Medical Clinic for 
     Women in Shreveport, Louisiana, repeated this mantra over and 
     over to the teary women on the other end of the phone. The 
     calls were coming from all over Texas, where abortion is 
     currently banned at about six weeks, before many women know 
     they are pregnant. They wanted to know if they could get an 
     abortion in Louisiana instead.
       ``The phone has been ringing off the wall, patients 
     attempting to get in,'' Pittman said. But appointments were 
     scarce. When I spoke with her on Thursday, Hope Medical 
     Clinic was the only functioning abortion clinic in the state 
     of Louisiana; the other two remaining clinics were closed due 
     to power outages caused by Hurricane Ida. ``Right now we are 
     booked out three, possibly four weeks just to get in for that 
     first visit,'' Pittman said, noting that a state-mandated 
     waiting period requires patients to come to the clinic twice. 
     ``We're going to see women who are terminating later in the 
     pregnancy than desired because they simply can't get in 
     quickly enough,'' she said. Others, she feared, wouldn't be 
     able to get an abortion at all. ``Of course it's going to be 
     the women who have no money,'' she added. ``It's always the 
     women without the means that suffer the most.''
       In the wake of SB 8, which went into effect on Wednesday, 
     many clinics in Texas are still providing abortions for 
     patients up to six-weeks pregnant, or before embryonic 
     cardiac activity can be detected. Everyone else--estimated to 
     be about 85 percent of all abortion patients--is now being 
     referred out of state. As a result, clinics in Oklahoma, 
     Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas are being 
     inundated with a surge of pregnant people who are racing 
     against the clock for care. Yet, in many of these states, 
     years of constant antiabortion attacks have eroded the 
     existing reproductive health infrastructure, leaving a 
     fragile system that is ill-equipped to absorb the additional 
     demand.
       ``The second largest state in the country goes dark on a 
     service and everyone else surrounding is trying to support 
     and provide care,'' said Emily Wales, interim president and 
     CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which covers 
     Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Clinics in all three states 
     are seeing an increase in Texas patients, she said, 
     especially in Oklahoma. At the same time, abortion access is 
     under attack there; five new abortion restrictions are set to 
     go into effect on November 1. ``It feels a little bit like 
     it's whack-a-mole right now in trying to beat back what are 
     medically unnecessary requirements to ensure ongoing 
     access,'' Wales said.
       While other states have passed similar six-week abortion 
     bans, the Texas law is the only one that has been allowed to 
     go into effect. That's because of the unique way it was 
     drafted. The state does not enforce the law. Instead, SB 8 
     deputizes regular people to file civil lawsuits against 
     doctors or anyone else who knowingly ``aids or abets'' an 
     abortion. The law appears to have been intentionally designed 
     this way to thwart judicial action.
       At Trust Women's clinic in Oklahoma City, which is one of 
     the closest abortion clinics for people in north Texas, 
     abortion appointments are already being booked three weeks 
     into September, just like at Hope Medical Clinic in 
     Louisiana. ``All of our doctors fly in from other states,'' 
     explained Zack Gingrich-Gaylord, communications director for 
     Trust Women. ``We're currently asking them to consider 
     working additional days, but of course, our doctors also 
     practice medicine in their home states as well.'' Trust Women 
     has another clinic in Wichita, Kansas, with slightly more 
     availability, but to get there, Texas patients must travel 
     even further. ``We've already started seeing some of those 
     Texas patients today, and we've got some scheduled 
     tomorrow,'' said Ashley Brink, the Wichita clinic director. 
     ``It's been a really emotional time. A lot of these folks, 
     they're scared, they're confused, they're sad.''
       Kristina Tocce, medical director at Planned Parenthood of 
     the Rocky Mountains, said she was seeing the same uptick in 
     Colorado and New Mexico. ``I'm very nervous for patients who 
     need services immediately because this was an immediate hard 
     stop to abortion services in Texas without a clear path for 
     those patients as to where they can go,'' she said. ``Texas 
     is essentially a pre-Roe world now.''
       The distance to the nearest clinic is only one of the 
     problems that Texas patients now face, said Alan Braid, the 
     owner and medical director of Alamo Women's Reproductive 
     Services in San Antonio. Many patients are already mothers, 
     and cannot leave their jobs or their children for the length 
     of time needed to access care in another state. Some are 
     undocumented and cannot travel with ease.
       ``It sounds very easy--oh well, you can't get it in Texas, 
     just go to Oklahoma, New Mexico. But the people that we see--
     that hourly wage patient, the single mom, the people that 
     don't have the means to travel--it's impossible for them,'' 
     he said. ``That's like saying well, just hop on a plane and, 
     you know, go to France. It's beautiful there, you can get an 
     abortion and then take a walk down the Champs-Elysees.''
       Braid, who has been providing abortion care in Texas since 
     he began his OB/GYN internship in 1972, said this was the 
     worst climate he had ever seen for reproductive rights in 
     Texas since before Roe v. Wade. The new law, with its 
     vigilante-enforcement scheme, is spreading fear and distrust. 
     ``You can feel it in the room,'' he said. ``It hangs heavy.'' 
     As a provider, he said, he is usually optimistic that he can 
     support his patients and meet their needs. ``Now, when I walk 
     in the room, I have huge doubts about whether I'm going to be 
     able to help,'' he said. ``I'm not used to that.''
       He expressed deep concern about what patients will do to 
     obtain abortions if they can't get one inside Texas when they 
     need it. He still has a powerful memory of three teenagers 
     dying from septic shock and organ failure after obtaining 
     back-alley abortions back when he was an intern in 1972.
       ``That's where we're headed,'' he said. ``I promise you 
     that people are going to cross the border to Mexico. They're 
     going to self-induce.''

                   [From the AP News, Sept. 2, 2021]

      New Texas Abortion Law Pushes Women to Out-of-State Clinics

       Even before a strict abortion ban took effect in Texas this 
     week, clinics in neighboring states were fielding growing 
     numbers of calls from women desperate for options.
       An Oklahoma clinic had received more than double its number 
     of typical inquiries, two-thirds of them from Texas. A Kansas 
     clinic is anticipating a patient increase of up

[[Page H5155]]

     to 40% based on calls from women in Texas. A Colorado clinic 
     that already had started seeing more patients from other 
     states was preparing to ramp up supplies and staffing in 
     anticipation of the law taking effect.
       The Texas law, allowed to stand in a decision Thursday by 
     the U.S. Supreme Court, bans abortions once medical 
     professionals can detect cardiac activity, typically around 
     six weeks. In a highly unusual twist, enforcement will be 
     done by private citizens who can sue anyone they believe is 
     violating the law.
       ``There's real panic about how are they going to get an 
     abortion within six weeks,'' said Anna Rupani, co-director of 
     Fund Texas Choice, one of several nonprofits that help pay 
     for travel and other expenses for patients seeking out-of-
     state abortions. ``There's this fear that if I can't get it 
     done in six weeks, I may not be able to get it done because I 
     may not be able to leave my job or my family for more than a 
     day.''
       Traveling for an abortion may be impossible for women who 
     would struggle to find child care or take time off work. And 
     for those without legal U.S. status along Texas' southern 
     border, traveling to an abortion clinic also entails the risk 
     of getting stopped at a checkpoint.
       Fund Texas Choice is among the groups seeking to expand a 
     network that helps women in Texas and other places with 
     restrictive abortion laws end their pregnancies in other 
     states. It already has seen more women reaching out. The 
     organization typically handles 10 new cases per week but 
     received 10 calls from new clients just Wednesday, when the 
     law took effect.
       The phenomenon is not new. Women have been increasingly 
     seeking out-of-state abortions as Republican legislatures and 
     governors have passed ever-tighter abortion laws, 
     particularly in the South. At least 276,000 women terminated 
     their pregnancies outside their home state between 2012 and 
     2017, according to a 2019 Associated Press analysis of state 
     and federal data.
       The trend appears to have accelerated over the past year. 
     Abortion clinics in neighboring states began seeing an uptick 
     in calls from Texas after Gov. Greg Abbott banned abortions 
     in March 2020 for nearly a month under a COVID-19 executive 
     order.
       The number of Texans seeking abortions in Planned 
     Parenthood clinics in the Rocky Mountain region, which covers 
     Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and southern Nevada, was 12 
     times higher that month. In California, 7,000 patients came 
     from other states to Planned Parenthood clinics in 2020.
       The number of Texans getting abortions in Kansas jumped 
     from 25 in 2019 to 289 last year. The Trust Women clinic in 
     Wichita accounted for 203 of those procedures in a three-
     month period. Those patients traveled an average of 650 miles 
     (1,000 kilometers), Trust Women spokesman Zack Gingrich-
     Gaylord said.
       ``Last year was a dress rehearsal,'' he said, predicting 
     similar numbers under the new Texas law.
       One woman discovered she was pregnant just as Abbott's 
     emergency order banning abortions was lifted. She and her 
     partner had lost their jobs in San Antonio during the 
     pandemic.
       ``We didn't know which way the world was going to go with 
     everything shut down and no change in sight,'' said Miranda, 
     who spoke on the condition that only her first name be used 
     for fear of harassment and intimidation. ``The last thing I 
     wanted to do was be pregnant.''
       She struggled to find an abortion clinic that could help 
     her. An online search led her to Fund Texas Choice and the 
     Lilith Fund, another organization that offers financial 
     assistance to Texans seeking abortions. They offered to pay 
     for a flight to New Mexico.
       ``It's so comforting because it's like someone saying, `We 
     got you. Let's take care of this together,' '' Miranda said.
       Eventually, she found an appointment at a clinic in Dallas, 
     a five-hour drive away. The groups helped with gas and 
     lodging, aid that will be even more important with the new 
     law, Miranda said.
       ``To be able to help me in a time of need when I had 
     nothing, not even a job--that's something I think a lot of 
     women would benefit from if they knew those options were 
     there,'' she said.
       Trust Women Wichita clinic director Ashley Brink said the 
     phones have been busier than normal this week with potential 
     patients from Texas and beyond. Women also have been calling 
     from Louisiana and Alabama who would typically get abortion 
     care in Texas but are having to travel even farther.
       The clinic typically sees 40 to 50 abortion patients in a 
     week and now is expecting an additional 15 to 20.
       At Trust Women's clinic in Oklahoma City, 80 appointments 
     were scheduled over the past two days, more than double the 
     typical amount, co-executive director Rebecca Tong said. Two-
     thirds were from Texas, and the earliest opening was three 
     weeks out.
       ``Oklahoma has just barely enough clinics for the amount of 
     people here,'' Tong said. ``If anyone is thinking, `Oh, they 
     can just go out of state, it'll be so easy,' a lot of clinics 
     in the Midwest and South, we don't do abortion care five days 
     a week.''
       Oklahoma providers also face the potential for abortion 
     restrictions similar to those in Texas in a matter of months.
       In recent months, 15% of patients supported by Cobalt, an 
     abortion access advocacy group in Colorado, were from out of 
     state, president Karen Middleton said. She expects that 
     number to keep rising.
       The group administers a fund to cover the cost of the 
     procedure, travel, lodging and meals. It began preparing for 
     a potential influx of patients from Texas several weeks ago.
       ``We reached out to everyone who provides abortion care in 
     the state of Colorado,'' Middleton said. ``We asked them to 
     be ready and to let us know if they could handle increased 
     capacity.''
       Traveling for the procedure may still be out of reach for 
     some. Women without legal U.S. status might turn to abortion 
     medication, said Diana Gomez, advocacy manager with Progress 
     Texas, though even that option is in question.
       Several Republican-led states have passed laws making it 
     harder to access the pills and banning prescriptions through 
     virtual health visits. Texas is considering similar 
     restrictions, which could force women to get pills by mail 
     for do-it-yourself abortions or other methods.
       ``They are going to have to go underground and find 
     alternative means in our state,'' Gomez said.

                      [From TIME, Sept. 23, 2021]

   Florida Lawmaker Proposes Abortion Ban That Mimics Texas SB-8 Law

       A Florida legislator has proposed banning most abortions in 
     the state and allowing lawsuits against doctors who violate 
     it, mirroring a Texas law that instituted the strictest 
     abortion restrictions in the U.S.
       It wasn't immediately clear how much support the bill would 
     garner. The Republican-controlled Florida legislature has 
     shown significant support for tighter abortion policies, but 
     Governor Ron DeSantis said he hadn't reviewed this specific 
     proposal and the GOP House speaker was similarly noncommittal 
     on Wednesday.
       The bill, proposed by state Representative Webster Barnaby, 
     a Republican, would require doctors in Florida to perform 
     tests to determine if a fetus has a detectable heartbeat 
     before performing an abortion.
       If a physician detects a heartbeat, according to the bill, 
     abortion would be prohibited. The measure also would allow 
     doctors to be sued if suspected of performing an abortion 
     after detecting a heartbeat, matching a powerful provision in 
     the Texas law, known as Senate Bill Eight, or SB-8.
       The bill appeared to be a clear example of a Texas copycat 
     law in another large, GOP-controlled state. In the days after 
     the Texas law took effect, abortion clinics turned away 
     hundreds of patients. It was seen by abortion-rights 
     supporters as an end-run around Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme 
     Court decision that has been the foundation of abortion 
     rights in the U.S. ever since.
       Florida's Republican House Speaker Chris Sprowls said 
     through a spokesman that he supported stricter abortion 
     restrictions, but said that any bill brought to the floor 
     would have to withstand judicial scrutiny.
       ``We look forward to bringing to the Floor a bill that 
     saves every unborn life possible,'' he said. ``I have asked 
     House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Erin Grall and House 
     Health & Human Services Chairwoman Colleen Burton to review 
     the various proposals, look at other ideas, and take point on 
     this issue this Session.''
       Still, the Florida proposal sparked immediate condemnation 
     from abortion rights advocates, who called legislation 
     unconstitutional and part of a flurry of harsh restrictions 
     on women's rights.
       ``We are horrified to see anti-choice politicians in 
     Florida following in Texas' footsteps, and there's no 
     question that lawmakers hostile to reproductive freedom in 
     other states will do the same,'' Adrienne Kimmell, acting 
     president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said in a statement.
       Early this month, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court 
     refused to block the Texas law, which outlaws most abortions 
     after six weeks of pregnancy. SB-8, bars abortion after a 
     fetal heartbeat can be detected and puts clinics at risk of 
     being shut down if they are found to be in violation.
       Asked about Barnaby's bill on Wednesday in Kissimmee, 
     Desantis said he considered his record ``100% pro-life'' but 
     added that he had not seen it.
       Desantis, a Republican seen as a potential presidential 
     candidate, has rejected coronavirus mask mandates and so-
     called vaccine passports, saying his position is largely 
     about an individual's right to determine their healthcare 
     choices. He said Wednesday that the abortion question was 
     different because ``another life is at stake.''
       Democratic candidates vying to replace Desantis in the 2022 
     election firmly opposed the legislation.
       ``This is a direct attack on a woman's right to choose,'' 
     Charlie Crist, a former governor, said on Twitter. ``We're 
     going to have to fight tooth and nail to protect reproductive 
     freedom.''
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am ready to close, whenever the 
gentlewoman is ready. I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne), who is a champion for life.

[[Page H5156]]

  

  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, years ago, I, like many women, suffered 
a miscarriage. I should have been able to hold my son in my arms, but 
that was not God's plan. Years later, I still grieve that loss--and not 
the loss of a generic cluster of cells, but an actual baby who would 
have been about this size. My son had his own unique set of DNA, 
fingerprints, blood type, and a heartbeat--every marker that we use to 
identify a human being.
  Pregnancy is difficult on a policy and personal level, but to deny 
that a child growing inside a woman is nothing more than an 
inconvenience is to ignore the value of life. Losing a child changed 
who I was, and it is the same for most women. We can't pretend that 
this loss doesn't have lifelong consequences.
  Instead of promoting ways for women to end their pregnancies, we 
should be helping expectant mothers find the medical, emotional, and 
financial support they need. But that has never been the Democrats' 
focus. The party that claims to protect women is actively supporting 
policies that devalue the lives of women and children across the globe. 
Their policies have turned the human trafficking of children into a 
multibillion dollar industry and supported a terrorist regime since 
Afghanistan's takeover that went from educating and valuing the 
contribution of women to whipping them in the streets.
  This bill is called the Women's Health Protection Act. But make no 
mistake, Madam Speaker, no woman is protected under this bill. Rather, 
it authorizes killing for the sake of convenience. Innocent human lives 
are either valued or they are not. This bill is merely another example 
of the dehumanizing policy platform the Democrats have adopted. America 
is founded on the protection of life.
  Madam Speaker, as a Texas woman, a mother, and an American, I 
encourage the Chamber to reject this barbaric bill and embrace life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow), who is the 31st pro-life 
Congresswoman.
  Ms. LETLOW. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer an amendment to this bill.
  However, before I talk about the amendment, I think it is important 
for the House to note that the legislation before us is perhaps the 
most extreme abortion measure that Congress has ever considered. It 
will overturn countless protections for the unborn that States have 
already put into place, including those in my home State of Louisiana.
  As both a woman and, most importantly, a mother of two children, I 
feel uniquely qualified to speak about this issue. I have experienced 
firsthand the miracle of life and know the incredible intricacy of how 
a child is formed in the womb. Intimately knowing the special bond that 
grows between a mother and a child over those 9 months, I do not 
understand how we can pass this bill, a law that will allow an abortion 
to be performed up until the actual moment of birth, despite the fact 
that the child has a fully developed heart and can feel pain.
  The amendment I am bringing forward is the text of the Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act in which my distinguished colleague 
from Missouri, Ann Wagner, has been an outstanding leader.
  This amendment is simple, straightforward, and the right thing to do. 
It would ensure that newborn children who survive an abortion are given 
the same crucial, lifesaving medical care that any infant would 
receive.
  The most transformational moment in my life was when I held my two 
children in my arms for the first time. I have always considered myself 
to be pro-life, but I never truly understood the sanctity of life until 
that moment. I can't image why anybody would intentionally deny a 
precious child taking his first beautiful, beautiful breaths of life 
the very care that would keep them alive.
  This language has received bipartisan support in the past, and I hope 
my colleagues across the aisle will join us in voting in favor of this 
important measure that will truly save the lives of countless children.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Madam 
Speaker.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my 
colleagues to stop this bill. Open your minds to science and 
technology. Look and see the mysteries of the mother's womb. Open your 
ears to the cries of the unborn. May hearts break, and may we celebrate 
life--life in the United States of America--life for the living and the 
unborn.
  Vote ``no.''
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Judy Chu, the 
author of this legislation who has been fighting tirelessly for years, 
also Barbara Lee, my co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, and to all of 
our colleagues who value Americans' freedoms and the freedom of women 
to have the full range of healthcare that they need.
  This bill codifies the content of the law of the land, Roe v. Wade, 
no more and no less.
  The overheated and incorrect rhetoric on the other side of the aisle 
is shameful. It is shameful because it denies the freedom of all 
Americans to get the healthcare services that they need and to which 
they are entitled.
  Madam Speaker, we are a country of freedom, and we are a country of 
freedom of religion. As a practicing Christian, I am offended by the 
efforts on the other side of the aisle for people to impose their--
their personal--religious views on me as a Christian.
  Every woman and every man in this country deserves the freedom to 
exercise their religion and also to exercise their ability to get the 
healthcare that they need.
  For more than 50 years, as so many of my wonderful colleagues said, 
women across this country have had the right to get the abortion care 
they need because of a landmark decision made right across the street. 
But that right is being severely undermined in States across the 
country like Texas, Mississippi, and other States.
  For people in Texas and these other States, 50 years of precedent and 
healthcare access is being undermined as we speak. There are more than 
500 laws that have been introduced in States across this country that 
would restrict the ability of Americans to get the healthcare that they 
need and deserve. As a result, more than 90 percent of American 
counties no longer have abortion clinics. Some people might think that 
is good, but the vast majority of Americans believe that it is the 
choice of a woman and her healthcare provider about what healthcare she 
should receive.
  So today, if the Justices across the street won't act to protect this 
freedom of healthcare, this House of Representatives will.
  I will say it again: the decision of a woman to have an abortion 
should be made between her and her doctor. The last thing the women in 
this country want is a bunch of politicians in Washington, D.C., or in 
Austin, Texas, or someone else telling them what their healthcare 
should be.
  So, therefore, let's codify Roe v. Wade. Let's codify these rights. 
Let's stop the histrionics and inaccurate rhetoric. Let's oppose the 
motion to recommit. Let's support this wonderful bill, the Women's 
Health Protection Act.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'', and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues and this 
House to oppose H.R. 3755. This legislation overrides nearly all pro-
life protections on the books and codifies a federal right to abortion 
at any stage of pregnancy until birth. This bill isn't just misleading. 
It's a radical departure from the national consensus that exists in 
America right now in favor of life. But if H.R. 3755 goes forward, laws 
that protect unborn children with Down Syndrome and babies with other 
disabilities go away everywhere. Laws allow parents to be involved in 
their minor children's decision-making disappear. Laws that provide for 
medical consultations prior to this procedure--

[[Page H5157]]

gone. This isn't just politics as usual. It's a power play that targets 
the powerless. It should never come to this. There is a common-sense 
consensus on this issue. A great majority of the American people want 
to see life protected. This is worth the fight. This is the time to 
stand up for our most vulnerable. This is the time to reach for what 
matters most. This is the time to choose life. H.R. 3755 must not 
become law of the land.
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I want to amplify the voice of Calla Hales, 
a woman in my district who is both an abortion care provider, and a 
mother.

       ``Last year, I made the choice to have a child with my 
     husband.
       What I didn't choose was prenatal checkups with COVID 
     precautions. I didn't choose the complications I had during 
     my pregnancy. I didn't choose delivering my amazing baby girl 
     without my family because the pandemic limited the visitors 
     in the maternity ward.
       I didn't choose worrying every day if she would be safe 
     from the coronavirus, despite her pulmonary issues.
       I am proud of the choice that I made, in spite of 
     everything that's gone wrong over the past two years.
       But no one should ever be forced to make that choice. No 
     person should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, during 
     a global pandemic, or any other time.''
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act. I want to thank my 
colleague Rep. Judy Chu for leading the charge on this important 
legislation to protect the full range of health care, including 
abortion.
  Every American deserves to live a safe and healthy life, and that 
means ensuring that everyone has access to the health services they 
need including contraceptives, checkups, abortion care, cancer 
screenings, pre-natal visits and more. The full range of health care. 
But too often in America access to high-quality, affordable health care 
has been limited due to racial disparities or economic disparities or 
where someone lives.
  I'm really proud of what Democrats have done over the decades to 
improve the lives of American families and improve their health care, 
Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and children's health 
insurance, but we're in a moment in time where there's a radical fringe 
trying to take over these decisions.
  We must remember that the decision about when, whether or how to 
become a parent is a deeply personal life decision. It's a decision for 
a person and their family; it is not a decision for politicians in 
Washington or in state capitols across this country. Americans do not 
want to outsource these important fundamental life decisions to 
politicians. And I hope we can agree that we should not treat people 
differently just because they are working to make ends meet, or because 
of the color of their skin or where they live. As fundamental human 
dignity means being able to make decisions about your pathway in life, 
being able to determine your own pathway in life for yourself, not have 
it be made by some politician. I have to say it is so alarming to see 
this radical move by Republicans in Congress and in the recent extreme 
new law in Texas that would effectively ban abortion.
  For too long, we have seen Republicans across this country attack 
family planning and reproductive health care, including abortion and 
contraceptives. It's radical and it's wrong.
  Well good news, we are going to do our job as members of Congress 
today to put people's health, safety and real needs first. We've got to 
ensure that all people no matter who they are, where they live and how 
much they make and the color of their skin, have access to reproductive 
health care--including abortion--that they need, and they deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to make health care accessible to all Americans 
by supporting H.R. 3755.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, the Women's Health Protection Act (H.R. 
3755)--otherwise known as the Abortion on Demand Act--is an extreme 
measure that would impose abortion on demand nationwide, at any stage 
of pregnancy, through federal statute. This would result in the 
elimination of every state's pro-life laws and protections. Overriding 
state pro-life laws and prohibiting states from enacting legislation 
protecting unborn children would make protections for babies with Down 
syndrome and other disabilities illegal. Plain and simple, this 
legislation is extreme.
  This legislation is radically out of step with the American public, 
who do not support abortions with no limits. According to the 
Associated Press, 80 percent of Americans say abortion should be 
illegal in the third trimester.
  This bill would create a national standard to allow for abortions of 
unborn children for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy up until 
birth. A better and more accurate name for this bill would be the 
Abortion on Demand until Birth Act--because it is clear the focus of 
this bill is not protecting women's health like the current name 
suggests.
  Abortion ends the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human 
being. Tragically, abortion continues to put women in danger, takes the 
life of innocent children, and fails to recognize the dignity of all 
lives, regardless of how small. I adamantly oppose this legislation and 
any legislation that fails to protect the unborn.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, abortion care is healthcare.
  The Women's Health Protection Act protects the right of healthcare 
providers to provide abortion care free from undue burdens.
  This bill is needed now more than ever with Texas creating the 
harshest most inhumane abortion ban. And for all the men in this room--
that is one missed period. One.
  And frankly, I'm old enough to remember what this country looked like 
before Roe . . .
  Such draconian laws disproportionally impact Black, indigenous, 
LGBTQ+ individuals, and especially those experiencing domestic violence 
and sexual assault.
  Abortion care is essential. Period.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. LETLOW. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Letlow moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3755 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.

  The material previously referred to by Ms. Letlow is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SECTION 10. BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Born-
     Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act''.
       (b) Findings; Constitutional Authority.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
       (A) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, 
     the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws 
     of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of 
     such laws.
       (B) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a 
     hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the 
     protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or 
     for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other 
     facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a 
     patient within its care.
       (2) Constitutional authority.--In accordance with the above 
     findings, Congress enacts the following pursuant to Congress' 
     power under--
       (A) section 5 of the 14th Amendment, including the power to 
     enforce the prohibition on government action denying equal 
     protection of the laws; and
       (B) section 8 of article I to make all laws necessary and 
     proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the 
     Constitution of the United States, including the power to 
     regulate commerce under clause 3 of such section.
       (c) Born-alive Infants Protection.--
       (1) Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion 
     survivors.--Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:

     ``Sec. 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion 
       survivors

       ``(a) Requirements for Health Care Practitioners.--In the 
     case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a 
     child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United 
     States Code (commonly known as the `Born-Alive Infants 
     Protection Act')):
       ``(1) Degree of care required; immediate admission to a 
     hospital.--Any health care practitioner present at the time 
     the child is born alive shall--
       ``(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, 
     and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as 
     a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care 
     practitioner would render to any other child born alive at 
     the same gestational age; and
       ``(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence 
     required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born 
     alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.
       ``(2) Mandatory reporting of violations.--A health care 
     practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician's 
     office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure 
     to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall 
     immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or 
     Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.
       ``(b) Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(2) Intentional killing of child born alive.--Whoever 
     intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act 
     that kills

[[Page H5158]]

     a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be 
     punished as under section 1111 of this title for 
     intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
       ``(c) Bar to Prosecution.--The mother of a child born alive 
     described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted under 
     this section, for conspiracy to violate this section, or for 
     an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a 
     violation.
       ``(d) Civil Remedies.--
       ``(1) Civil action by a woman on whom an abortion is 
     performed.--If a child is born alive and there is a violation 
     of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was 
     performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any 
     person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate 
     relief.
       ``(2) Appropriate relief.--Appropriate relief in a civil 
     action under this subsection includes--
       ``(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries, 
     psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of 
     subsection (a);
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the 
     abortion or attempted abortion; and
       ``(C) punitive damages.
       ``(3) Attorney's fee for plaintiff.--The court shall award 
     a reasonable attorney's fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a 
     civil action under this subsection.
       ``(4) Attorney's fee for defendant.--If a defendant in a 
     civil action under this subsection prevails and the court 
     finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, the court 
     shall award a reasonable attorney's fee in favor of the 
     defendant against the plaintiff.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Abortion.--The term `abortion' means the use or 
     prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other 
     substance or device--
       ``(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman 
     known to be pregnant; or
       ``(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman 
     known to be pregnant, with an intention other than--
       ``(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve 
     the life and health of the child born alive; or
       ``(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
       ``(2) Attempt.--The term `attempt', with respect to an 
     abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the 
     actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in 
     a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an 
     abortion.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item pertaining to section 1531 the following:

``1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.''.
       (3) Chapter heading amendments.--
       (A) Chapter heading in chapter.--The chapter heading for 
     chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``Partial-Birth Abortions'' and inserting 
     ``Abortions''.
       (B) Table of chapters for part i.--The item relating to 
     chapter 74 in the table of chapters at the beginning of part 
     I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``Partial-Birth Abortions'' and inserting ``Abortions''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. LETLOW. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, 
nays 219, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 294]

                               YEAS--210

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--219

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cheney
     Lesko

                              {time}  1125

  Mses. SPEIER, LEGER FERNANDEZ, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, 
Mses. CLARK of Massachusetts, HOULAHAN, Messrs. GOMEZ, TRONE, Ms. 
KUSTER, Mr. DELGADO, Mses. JAYAPAL and SPANBERGER changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. GREENE of Georgia and Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

     Babin (Nehls)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
     Carter (GA) (Rodgers (WA))
     Carter (TX) (Calvert)
     Craig (McCollum)
     DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
     DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
     Gaetz (Greene (GA))
     Gallego (Gomez)
     Gimenez (Waltz)
     Gonzalez (OH) (Timmons)
     Gosar (Boebert)

[[Page H5159]]


     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Higgins (NY) (Tonko)
     Himes (Hayes)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kim (NJ) (Underwood)
     Kirkpatrick (Levin (CA))
     Larson (CT) (DeLauro)
     Latta (Walberg)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Levin (MI) (Raskin)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     McHenry (Banks)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Morelle (Tonko)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Neal (McGovern)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Perlmutter (Neguse)
     Peters (Rice (NY))
     Porter (Wexton)
     Reschenthaler (Meuser)
     Rice (SC) (Timmons)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Ryan (Kildee)
     Sewell (Cicilline)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Stanton (Levin (CA))
     Stefanik (Miller-Meeks)
     Steube (Franklin, Scott C.)
     Strickland (Torres (NY))
     Wagner (Walorski)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Lee of California). The question is on 
the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 211, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               YEAS--218

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--211

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cheney
     Lawson (FL)
     Lesko

                              {time}  1153

  Mr. CHABOT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Madam Speaker, the Member, who is my 
designated proxy, did not submit my vote as instructed on September 24, 
2021. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 
295, passage of H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.


                          Personal Explanation

  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, on Friday, September 24, 2021, I was 
attending a funeral in Wyoming and was absent for votes. Had I been 
present, I would have voted: yea on rollcall No. 294 and nay on 
rollcall No. 295.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 294 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 295.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Babin (Nehls)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
     Carter (GA) (Rodgers (WA))
     Carter (TX) (Calvert)
     Craig (McCollum)
     DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
     DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
     Gaetz (Greene (GA))
     Gallego (Gomez)
     Gimenez (Waltz)
     Gonzalez (OH) (Timmons)
     Gosar (Boebert)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Higgins (NY) (Tonko)
     Himes (Hayes)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kim (NJ) (Underwood)
     Kirkpatrick (Levin (CA))
     Larson (CT) (DeLauro)
     Latta (Walberg)
     Levin (MI) (Raskin)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     McHenry (Banks)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Morelle (Tonko)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Neal (McGovern)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Perlmutter (Neguse)
     Peters (Rice (NY))
     Porter (Wexton)
     Reschenthaler (Meuser)
     Rice (SC) (Timmons)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Ryan (Kildee)
     Sewell (Cicilline)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Stanton (Levin (CA))
     Stefanik (Miller-Meeks)
     Steube (Franklin, Scott C.)
     Strickland (Torres (NY))
     Wagner (Walorski)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________